Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 37 - EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update
Planning and Building Agency www.santa-ana.org/pb Item # 26 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Staff Report February 15, 2022 TOPIC: EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing - Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 for Santa Ana General Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06. 3. Adopt a resolution of findings to overrule the John Wayne Airport Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION & BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on November 8, 2021, and after receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03, including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approve General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06; and approve findings to overrule the John Wayne Airport Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. DISCUSSION At the direction of the Mayor and City Council in late 2015, the Planning Division began efforts to complete a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan. The General Plan EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 2 is a state mandated document that includes goals, policies, implementation measures and maps that will guide Santa Ana's physical growth for the next 25 years. The State of California requires every city to prepare and adopt "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city, and any land outside its boundaries which is in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning." The role of the General Plan is often referred to as the "Constitution of the City" as it serves as the guiding document by which all land use related decisions must be derived. The City's current General Plan (with the exception of the Housing Element) was last comprehensively adopted in 1982 and is now 39 years old. The General Plan establishes a community vision and strategies to guide growth, change and community preservation within the City, providing goals and policies to enhance, preserve and protect the unique qualities that the Santa Ana community values. The General Plan is the single -most important tool used to guide communities achieve their vision. As the General Plan is a policy document, it differs from the Zoning Code in that the Zoning Code is a regulatory implementation document which will identify specific development standards (setbacks, parking, open space etc.) for each parcel in the City. Upon adoption of the General Plan, staff will begin the process to complete a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code to implement the land use policies of the General Plan and to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Code. The comprehensive update to the General Plan document, known as "Golden City Beyond — A Shared Vision for Santa Ana," is comprised of two separate documents: • The General Plan (comprised of three Sections and 12 Elements) • Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report At the Planning Commission public hearing on November 9, 2020, concern was voiced regarding the City's need to address existing and future need for park and recreation resources, environmental health concerns, and broadening the community outreach to environmental justice (EJ) communities. Through the 2021 EJ community outreach described below, and collaboration with community serving organizations, neighborhood leaders, and interests parties; a number of Draft General Plan (August 2021) policies and programs were modified. These modifications, minor corrections to text and maps, and refinement to better align general plan land use density/ intensity with existing zoning were provided at the November 8, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing, and incorporated into the December 2021 Draft General Plan. Exhibit 4 provides Clarifications to the General Plan related to aligning the proposed general plan land use intensity with the existing zoning, and other minor modifications, that have been incorporated in the December 2021. Additionally, other text corrections and implementation timeframes have been revised due to the delay in the adoption in the General Plan Update. EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 3 Community Engagement The City's General Plan is a community -wide vision document that is intended to address and respond to community needs. As such, the comprehensive update to the General Plan required staff to advertise and educate community members about the process to as wide an audience as possible. Over the past six years, an extensive public outreach campaign was conducted to meaningfully engage the public and gather feedback and direction to create the vision for the future of Santa Ana and guide the update of the plan. These public outreach efforts included: • Over 60 community meetings and workshops • Individual community workshops within each of the five Focus Areas with over 300 residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders participating in the workshops. • Distribution of an online community survey with over 650 respondents to collect input on the content of the General Plan • Approximately 44,000 direct mailers sent to property owners and tenants in Focus Areas • Development of a multi lingual videos on the General Plan Update • A dedicated webpage (santa-ana.org/general-plan) with continuous updates on the General Plan update process and related documents as well as information about Environmental Justice. Also includes an online web learning tool with a narrated presentation to help educate and increase awareness on Environmental Justice issues. • Presentations at neighborhood Communication Linkages (Com-Link) meetings • Meetings with Environmental Justice groups and roundtables (Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Logan Neighborhood Association, Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Association, Orange County Environmental Justice) • Attendance at approximately 100 CARES events (in neighborhoods and evening City Park events) from late -August through the end of October within Environmental Justice communities to discuss the General plan update with residents • Planning Commission study sessions, most recently on April 12th, August 9th, August 23rd and September 13th • City Council study sessions • One-on-one meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council General Plan Advisory Group Following direction from the City Council in 2015 to comprehensively update the General Plan, a 17-member General Plan Advisory Group (GPAG) was established to provide guidance to City staff and the consultant team early in the process. Building on the feedback from the prior community outreach, the GPAG was critical in developing goals and policies EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 4 that would serve as the foundation of the General Plan elements. The GPAG was also tasked with functions such as formulating a community vision, identifying area -wide and community -wide land use planning issues, and prioritizing economic development activities. The GPAG was comprised of representatives from various commissions, residents, business owners, interest groups, youth and property owners to represent the community's interests. The GPAG held several meetings through 2016, providing direction to staff on key matters that are now embodied in the updated General Plan. Environmental Justice Focus As directed by Planning Commission public hearing on November 9, 2020, additional outreach was conducted to further provide Santa Ana's disadvantaged communities, or "environmental justice (EJ) communities", an opportunity to share their experiences and issues regarding environmental health and quality of life. Thus, Planning staff facilitated a multi -faceted outreach campaign during January through May 2021. The campaign began with the gathering of a General Plan Outreach Roundtable, with representatives from community serving organizations, neighborhood associations, and local stakeholders providing ideas and feedback on tools and strategies that could be used to effectively engage as many community members as possible. This effort included a multilingual EJ Survey (electronic and hard copy), which was publicized on various social media platforms, neighborhood yard signs, and collaboration with community groups and neighborhood leaders. Ten virtual community forums were held due to COVID-19; each focusing in on listening to the lived experiences of residents, property owners, and community stakeholders within specific geographic areas in the city that are identified as "EJ communities." Trilingual (English, Spanish and Vietnamese) flyers encouraging participation in the 10 community forums and EJ survey were mailed to over 40,000 property owners and residents/occupant within Santa Ana's EJ communities. Finally, in August 2021 one in -person EJ forum was held to share the results of the EJ survey and proposed general plan policy and program refinements, as well as to host a panel discussion with local EJ "champions" such a Madison Park, OCEJ and the Orange County Water District. PROPOSED 2020-2045 GENERAL PLAN — SANTA ANA: GOLDEN CITY BEYOND Development of Core Values A variety of community issues and considerations were identified through the different community outreach activities. With this community input, and with the input of the GPAG, a Draft General Plan Policy Framework was created in December 2018. Included within the Framework was a set of Community "Core Values" that were created to collectively reflect the voice of the Santa Ana community and to express its environmental justice principals. These Core Values: Health, Equity, Sustainability, Culture and Education, serve as the foundation of the goals, policies and implementation items found throughout the General Plan Elements. EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 5 Communitv Vision Statement Through a robust dialogue with the community, including residents, business and property owners, and other interested citizens, a long-term General Plan Vision Statement was crafted. This Vision Statement is not only the foundation for the updated General Plan, but also for all long-term decision making in the City. The Vision Statement memorializes the community's aspirations and describes the "Santa Ana — Golden City Beyond" as embracing the following principles: • Protect and enhance our cultural and community assets • Create a land use pattern that promotes healthy and active lifestyles • Ensure equitable outcomes and land use distributions • Create a sustainable and livable city • Promote lifelong education and prosperity Format and Content of the General Plan The proposed General Plan is a comprehensive update and reorganization of the current General Plan Document, with the exception of Housing Element. The Housing Element is on a State mandated eight -year cycle and is being updated independently of this effort to comply with State law. The State mandated elements (Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety and Housing) and optional elements are organized into three Sections: Services and Infrastructure (Section 1) o Community Element o Mobility Element o Economic Prosperity Element o Public Services Element • Natural Environment (Section 11) o Conservation Element o Open Space Element o Noise Element o Safety Element • Built Environment (Section III) o Land Use Element o Historic Preservation Element o Housing Element (Undergoing standalone update process) o Urban Design Element EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 6 Senate Bill 1000 was signed into law in 2016 requires cities to identify "environmental justice" or "disadvantaged communities" within their jurisdiction as part of the general plan process. This law has several purposes, including facilitating transparency and public engagement in local governments' planning and decision -making processes, and to identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities that prioritize improvements and programs to address the needs of disadvantaged communities. It also requires that cities promote equitable access to health - inducing benefits, such as healthy food options, housing, public facilities, and recreation. Given that the environmental justice issues touches all aspects and all elements of the General Plan, it was determined early in the process that the best fit for the City is to incorporate environmental justice policies woven into the fabric of the various Elements. To identify for the public and the reader, a unique identifying logo consisting of a colored tile with the letters "Eq" in the center and "EX in the upper right corner has been incorporated into the various General Plan policies and implementation measures that address environmental justice concerns in the City. Additionally, the City prepared optional elements based on the input from the community to address special and unique community priorities. These elements include the Community, Economic Prosperity, Public Services, Historic Preservation, and Urban Design elements. Outlined below is an overview of the 11 Elements that are being updated, excluding the Housing Element as mentioned previously: Community Element. The Community Element is a new element of the Santa Ana General Plan. The element reinforces the city's values of recreation, culture, education, health and wellness, and cultivates opportunities for improved quality of life for all residents. The goals and policies of this element can be realized through partnerships with local agencies and organizations on facilities, activities and events throughout Santa Ana This Element functions in tandem with other elements of the General Plan, such as Open Space, which contains policies related to parks and recreation facilities. Several plans and programs implemented by the City and other agencies and organizations overlap with the goals and policies of this Element, such as the Community Arts and Culture Master Plan, which establishes goals and strategies on topics such as cultural equity, infrastructure for the arts, communitywide access, youth programming, and place making. There are 3 goals, 28 policies and 18 implementation items associated with this element. This element is not mandated by State law and is an optional element. Mobility Element. The Mobility Element, known as the Circulation Element in the current General Plan, is the City's blueprint for moving people, goods, and resources throughout the community. Moving beyond mere functionality, the City seeks to improve the quality of life in Santa Ana by providing more complete streets, offering ways to be more active, and conserving natural resources. In planning the City's transportation system for the EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 7 21st Century, the City is also making the community safer, more affordable, and more livable. Santa Ana envisions a balanced multimodal transportation system that supports community values. These values include a vibrant local economy, healthy neighborhoods, health and wellness, and an attractive environment. Context sensitive design solutions strengthen the livability, vitality and safety of our neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. There are 5 goals, 46 policies and 45 implementation items associated with this Element. This Element is one of the State mandated elements. Economic Prosperity Element. The Economic Prosperity Element, identified as the Economic Development in the existing General Plan, will ensure Santa Ana's local economy. The Element defines Santa Ana's role in the broader regional economy, expands, maintains, and enhances job opportunities, attracts and retains a balance of business types, provides sufficient revenue for public services, and contributes to the overall quality of life experienced by the City's residents. The goals and policies of this Element will inform and guide decisions across local government. The City intends that its allocation of resources, the operation of its agencies, and the application of its regulatory authority will grow and diversify the local economy. The City further intends that local economic growth and diversification will reduce poverty, increase overall prosperity, improve health and wellness outcomes, expand housing opportunities, and increase quality of life choices available to City residents. There are 4 goals, 39 policies and 31 implementation items associated with this Element. This Element is not a State mandated element. Public Services Element. The Public Services Element, identified as the Public Facilities Element in the current General Plan, provides Santa Ana's diverse population with quality services and infrastructure, including accessible public facilities and enhanced public safety. Anticipated growth will require the City to fulfill community needs and to ensure proper management of those needs. It is important that public facilities and services are equitably distributed and maintained at sustainable levels throughout the community. A wide range of City entities and external agencies work closely together to provide the full spectrum of services and facilities. There are 3 goals, 38 policies and 40 implementation items associated with this element. This Element is an optional General Plan Element. Conservation Element. The protection and management of Santa Ana's air, water, and energy resources are essential for a healthy, sustainable and equitable path forward. Additionally, the preservation of the remaining stretches of undisturbed plant and wildlife environment, such as in Santiago Park, is important to residents. The Conservation Element identifies the community's natural resources and illustrates the benefits for retention, enhancement, and development of these resources towards EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 8 improving quality of life and the environment as a whole. This Element will guide the City in its efforts to prioritize sustainability and enhance the environment for current and future generations. The Core Values reinforce the City's commitment to enable all persons to enjoy equal access to healthy environments, healthy food, parks and recreational facilities, and civic engagement opportunities. However, the City recognizes that throughout Santa Ana's communities, some bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and associated health risks. As a result, this element also addresses environmental justice issues within disadvantaged communities, which aims to correct inequity by reducing pollution and increasing public investment in the communities most affected while ensuring their participation and input is considered in decision making -process. There are 4 goals, 39 policies and 39 implementation items associated with this element. This Element is a State mandated Element Open Space Element. Open space is a limited and valuable resource, providing multiple benefits to those living and working in Santa Ana. Open space provides a place of relaxation and reprieve from the urban environment. Open space also offers places to gather, celebrate, learn or exercise, whether alone, with friends or family, or with other members of the community. Open space is so important that its presence or absence can profoundly shape the physical, social, mental and economic health, and overall well- being of the community. The purpose of the Open Space Element is to identify and preserve open space areas that provide value to the community and enrich the quality of life. Such lands or waters provide value in the form of recreation, health, biodiversity, wildlife conservation and aesthetics. Additionally, open spaces are used for climate change, mitigation and adaption, flood risk reduction, managed natural resources production, agricultural production, and protection from hazardous conditions. The Open Space Element will guide the City in its efforts to plan for open space and public parklands in what is largely a built -out, urban environment. Through this element, opportunities for capturing additional open space and public parkland standards in the City is discussed. There are 3 goals, 36 policies and 32implementation items associated with this Element. This Element is a State mandated element. Noise Element. The purpose of the Noise Element is to appraise noise levels in the community, prepare noise contours to guide land use decisions, and establish measures that address current and future noise impacts. This Element works to ensure that the City limits the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noise -sensitive areas and at noise -sensitive times of day. This Element works in tandem with other Elements of the General Plan, such as the Mobility Element, which contains policies related to the mitigation of transportation related noise. There are 3 goals, 10 policies and 20 implementation items associated with this Element. This Element is one of the State mandated elements. EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 9 Safety Element. The Safety Element combines the Public Safety and Seismic Safety elements of the existing General Plan into one document. Public health and safety and protection from the risks of natural and human -induced disasters, emergencies, and hazards are vital in establishing a safe and healthy environment for Santa Ana's residents, workers, and visitors. The purpose of the Safety Element is to eliminate and minimize risks associated with natural and human -generated hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and hazardous materials. By assessing and preparing for levels of risk, the City can endure the range of safety hazards and adapt to changes over time. This Element works in tandem with other elements of the General Plan, such as the Public Services Element, which contains goals and policies related to police, fire, and health services, as well as emergency planning and resiliency. There are 4 goals, 24 policies and 27 implementation items associated with this Element. This is a State mandated element. Historic Preservation Element. The Historic Preservation Element is a new element of the Santa Ana General Plan. Santa Ana was incorporated as a city in 1886 and designated the County seat in 1889. Historic preservation of the City's cultural and architectural heritage is an essential part of the City's economic vitality and identity. Residents take pride in the architectural heritage of the City, including its historical buildings and unique neighborhood character. Sites such as the Old Orange County Courthouse, Pacific Substation, Yost Theatre, and the Spurgeon Building reflect the City's rich cultural history and architectural diversity. The purpose of the Historic Preservation Element is to provide guidance in developing and implementing activities that ensure that identification, designation and protection of architectural, historical, cultural and archaeological resources are part of the City's planning, development and permitting processes. Through historic preservation policies and programs, Santa Ana's heritage and diversity will continue to be a source of community pride. There are 3 goals, 21 policies and 28 implementation items associated with this Element. This is an optional element of a General Plan. Land Use Element. The Land Use Element provides a long-range guide for the physical development of the City, reflecting the community's vision for a high quality of life. This Element guides the distribution, location, and size of new development, ensuring that residential neighborhoods are protected, and future growth is sustainable and minimizes potential conflicts. Through its focus on the pattern of land use, this element is also a tool to promote public health, reduce infrastructure costs, enhance local economies, and address long-term environmental issues such as air quality, climate change and water resources. The development, use and distribution of land are critical to achieving the City's vision and adhering to the Core Values. As stewards of the land, the City must plan for uses and development that creates a sustainable, healthy and livable City, ensures equitable EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 10 outcomes and land use distributions, protects and enhances cultural and community assets, and provides opportunities for growth and prosperity. As in other cities, land is a finite and valuable resource. Its use dictates the City's economic and fiscal future. The Land Use Element preserves existing neighborhoods by directing new growth to major corridors and avoids land use changes in existing established neighborhoods. The five growth areas are identified as Focus Areas, and include: South Main Street, Grand /Seventeenth Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard (adjacent to the OC Streetcar line), 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The proposed Land Use Element will connect existing planning areas in the City (Transit Zoning Code, Harbor Boulevard Mixed -Use Corridor, Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone, etc.,) with the five proposed Focus Areas. Within these Focus Areas, the City anticipates the most potential for major development. A list of the parcels proposed for General Plan land use designation changes are included in Exhibit 7. There are 4 goals, 42 policies and 58 implementation items associated with this element. This is one of the State mandated elements. Urban Design Element. Urban design is the process of shaping the physical character and organization of the City and defining the relationship between people and their environment. It respects the history of a place, considers existing organizational patterns and the form and character of existing buildings, supports healthy outdoor spaces, and is mindful of the natural environment. These considerations unite to define a distinct visual quality and sense of place that reflects community values. The Urban Design Element establishes the long-range vision for the physical development, visual qualities, and sensory experience of the City. This Element, in coordination with other elements of the General Plan, orchestrates a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing urban environment. Specifically, the Urban Design Element addresses the public realm, building form, and establishes programs and measures to improve the physical setting in which community life takes place while curtailing obsolete, dysfunctional, and chaotic development. There are 7 goals, 50 policies and 30 implementation items associated with this Element. This is an optional element of the General Plan. EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Draft Programs Environment Impact Report (August 2020) The comprehensive update to the General Plan required extensive environmental review. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and after completion of the Initial Study for the project, it was determined that CEQA required the preparation and certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for this project. The purpose of a PEIR is to identify and disclose the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the way those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the Draft PEIR analyzes issues related to: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazard and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; and Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft PEIR also studies alternatives to the General Plan Update, as well as direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project. The original Draft PEIR (August 2020) for the General Plan Update (GPU) was prepared and distributed for the required 45-day public review between August 3, 2020, and September 16, 2020. However, due to community request for additional time to review the document, the comment period was extended by an additional 20 days to October 6, 2020. At the public hearing on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission voted to continue the consideration of the GPU and the certification of the Final PEIR (October 2020) to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana's environmental justice (EJ) communities. Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (August 2021) In 2021, the City initiated an expanded outreach program focusing on environmental justice and specific community concerns raised in comments received. Pursuant to Draft PEIR comments, the Planning Commission public hearing, and the expanded community outreach program, the City made the decision to prepare a Recirculated Draft PEIR. The Recirculated document concluded that the recreation -related impacts of the proposed GPU would result in a significant impact and defined a new project alternative to reduce these impacts. It also further discussed and evaluated impacts related to environmental justice, including air quality, hazards, and recreation/open space. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the Recirculated Draft PEIR does not need to include all the topical CEQA sections from the original Draft PEIR. Rather, the Recirculated Draft PEIR (August 2021) updates and supplements only the three topical EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 12 environmental topics of Air Quality, Hazards, and Recreation. The Recirculated Draft PEIR also includes an updated/supplemented Project Alternatives chapter containing a new Reduced Park Demand Alternative to reduce the significant recreation impacts associated with the proposed GPU, as well as an additional mitigation measure and reference to General Plan policy and implementation action refinements. The Recirculated Draft PEIR incorporates the previous Draft PEIR by reference, as appropriate. In particular, the previous Draft PEIR document and its appendices are referenced for long and/or technical descriptions of the environmental setting that remain applicable to the updated GPU. Three project alternatives were analyzed within the Final PEIR (October 2020) document. These included a no project alternative, where the existing General Plan document would remain in effect (Alternative 1); a reduced intensity alternative with two focus areas (55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol Street) would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the maximum densities allowed by their respective land use designation (Alternative 2); and build out of the site to be consistent with the Southern California's Association of Regional Government's (SCAG) RTP/SCS projections, which could result in an approximate 75 percent reduction in both the number of allowable units and commercial/industrial square footage (Alternative 3). The Recirculated Draft PEIR (August 2021) introduces a reduced park demand project (Alternative 4) that reduces residential growth by 11,225 units by eliminating or reducing residential land uses and intensity in the five focus areas. Overall, nonresidential square footage would be reduced by a total of approximately 2.8 million square feet within the focus areas compared to the proposed GPU. New residential growth under this alternative would largely be in currently planned areas that are generally near a number of existing park facilities, with some residential growth would be introduced into two focus areas at substantially lower intensities to reduce the potential impact on park facilities. As required, the Draft Recirculated PEIR (August 2021) was circulated for public review between August 6, 2021 and September 20, 2021, with the Notice of Availability (NOA) instructing reviewers to only submit comments on the three revised chapters included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. The comments in the original Final PEIR adequately address comments received on portions of the Draft PEIR that have not been recirculated. During the review and comment period, staff held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Recirculated PEIR and a work-study session with the Planning Commission on September 13, 2021. The Draft PEIR (August 2020), Final PEIR (October 2020), and Final Recirculated PEIR including all report appendices, are posted on the City's website. https://www.santa- ana.org/general-plan The City has evaluated the comments received from persons and agencies for both the Draft PEIR (August 2020) and Recirculated Draft PEIR (August 2021), and completed EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 13 detailed Response to Comments, revisions to the Draft documents including clarifications and/or corrections to typographical errors, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP contains mitigation measures to address impacts to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, tribal cultural resources, and recreation. The response to comments, MMRP and Final PEIR were published on November 2, 2021 for public review. The Draft PEIR (August 2020) and Draft Recirculated PEIR (August 2021) responses to comments document, revisions to the Draft PEIR, and the MMRP constitute the Final PEIR for the project. The Final Recirculated PEIR identifies six significant and unavoidable impacts associated with this project, which pertain to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Population and Housing, and Recreation. City of Santa Ana is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Air quality in the Basin is already significantly impacted and even without any new projects, air quality issues are beyond mitigation. The impact to air quality as a result of General Plan implementation falls into two categories: Operational Emissions impacts which are project specific and cumulative; and Localized Criterial Pollutant and Toxic Air Contaminants JAC) Impacts which are related to increased density and proximity of residential land uses to transit and commercial centers. Cultural Resource impacts result from the proposed General Plan allowing development in areas that have historic resources identified by previous cultural resource surveys, with development in these areas potentially causing the disturbance of historic resources in the plan area. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) impacts are project specific and cumulative. They are attributed to ongoing operational impacts of potential future businesses. The threshold for GHG would exceed established ratios thresholds under Executive Order S-03-05. Noise impacts are also project specific and cumulative. They are attributed to ongoing operational impacts of potential future businesses, as well as the location of sensitive receptors in relationship to noise generating activities. Further, buildout of the General Plan update would expose residents to projects generating traffic noise. Population and housing impacts associated with the General Plan buildout related to the anticipated growth both in population and housing units would exceed the Orange County Council of Government projections by up to 38 percent, with no feasible mitigation measure to address the issue. Finally, Recreation impacts from the proposed General Plan may result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational resources and the need to construct or expand City's public parks and recreational facilities to address existing and future demand. EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 14 CEQA allows lead agencies to approve projects despite having significant and unavoidable impacts by adopting a statement of overriding considerations. A statement of overriding considerations documents the reasons why an agency chose to approve a project despite its significant and unavoidable impacts based on range of balancing factors, including economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits conveyed by project. City staff is recommending adoption of a statement of overriding consideration for the General Plan and its implementation actions. In this instance, the economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan implementation collectively outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts noted above. Such benefits include the implementation of policies and programs preserving and enhancing community character, increasing community sustainability, providing high -quality and diverse housing opportunities, increasing economic vitality via new and business creation, supporting technological advancements, and maintaining compliance with current law. The acceptance of the noted significant and unavoidable impacts does not mean the City will forego efforts to mitigate the impacts to extent feasible. In addition, future projects will be subject to the discretionary review procedures through which the City will consider project specific environmental impacts and/or subject to regulations to offset impacts. As these reviews occur, decision makers will be updated on the status of application mitigation measures when making decision on such projects. Public notices for the City Council public hearing were mailed to interested parties, as well as property owners and occupants/tenants in the five Land Use Focus Area and a 500-foot radius from the Focus Area boundaries. In addition, a newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Reporter on November 26, 2021. Airport Land Use Commission Review The proposed changes to the Land Use Element to adopt the South Bristol and the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Areas required the General Plan update to be presented to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with their Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). On October 15th, 2020 the ALUC determined that the General Plan update conflicts with the goals and objectives of the AELUP and voted 5:0 to find the General Plan update inconsistent with their plan. As a result, on October 16th, 2020, at a special City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to file a Notice of Intent to Overrule the ALUC's determination. The draft City Council resolution for overruling the ALUC's determination has been attached at Exhibit 8. Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the City Council certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022 Page 15 adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopt a resolution of findings to overrule the John Wayne Airport Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. EIR Resolution, including Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 2. General Plan Amendment Resolution 3. General Plan 2045 — Santa Ana Beyond Link (December 2021) 4. Clarifications to Draft General Plan 5. Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Link 6. Planning Commission staff report, exhibits, presentation, and written public comments of November 8, 2021 are incorporated herein by reference and can be viewed at the following link: Item - PrimeGov Portal 7. List of Parcel with General Plan Land Use Designation Changes 8. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Override Resolution Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, (2) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (4) APPROVING THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana seeks to approve the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update identified the following five focus areas for potential change and new growth: South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street; and WHEREAS, the total long-term potential growth within these focus areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non-residential building square footage, and 6,616 jobs; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update ("project") requires, among other things: (1) adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan Update; (2) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report; (3) adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (5) adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, standards, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the Santa Ana General Plan update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency for the project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a), the City as lead agency determined that a program EIR was required for the project, and therefore did not prepare an initial study; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on February 26, 2020, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation —which was also published in the Orange Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 7 County Register, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Ana —stating that an environmental impact report would be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed scoping meeting on March 5, 2020, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) was prepared for the proposed project addressing comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation and evaluating the proposed project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR identified five significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project that pertain to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Population and Housing; and WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR further determined that the proposed project would require mitigation related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and tribal cultural resources; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft PEIR was circulated for review and comment to the public, City Council, Planning Commission, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day review period, from August 3, 2020, to September 16, 2020, a period that was extended thereafter to October 6, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City released the Final PEIR, which consists of the Draft PEIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft PEIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft PEIR, errata to the Draft PEIR and technical appendices; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final PEIR and General Plan Update, at which the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final PEIR and continue work on the General Plan Update to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana's environmental justice (EJ) communities and in view of the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, in 2021, a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Recirculated Draft PEIR") was prepared as a supplemental analysis to the original Draft PEIR to reflect updates to the project and based on an intensive, extended Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2of7 community outreach program conducted by the City between January and May 2021; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft PEIR provided an update of the project description, and environmental setting and impact analyses for Air Quality, Hazards, and Recreation; incorporated a new alternative; and identified an additional significant unavoidable adverse environmental impact that pertains to Recreation; and WHEREAS, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Recirculated Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, from August 6, 2021, to September 20, 2021; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Recirculated Draft PEIR were available for review and inspection at City Hall, on the City's website, and at the Santa Ana Public Library; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, Planning Commission work- study sessions were held on August 9, 2021 and August 23, 2021, and a public hearing held on September 13, 2021; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City consulted with and received comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, the City released the Final Recirculated PEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which consists of the Recirculated Draft PEIR, all technical appendices prepared in support thereof, all documents incorporated by reference (including the Final PEIR), all written comment letters received on the Recirculated Draft PEIR, written responses to all written comment letters and verbal comments received on the Recirculated Draft PEIR, revisions to the Recirculated Draft PEIR and technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Recirculated PEIR and General Plan Update. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Recirculated PEIR, adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approve the project; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Recirculated PEIR, at which hearing members of Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 7 the public were afforded an opportunity to comment and the project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final Recirculated PEIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision and recommendations on the project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the Final Recirculated PEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the project, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project's environmental impacts that are less than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures, as identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR, are described in Section IV of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project's impacts that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts, and that upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the Final Recirculated PEIR, would be considered less than significant, are described in Section V of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project's impacts that, even with mitigation measures, would remain significant and unavoidable are described in Section V of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the reasonable alternatives to the project are described in Section VI of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that indicates the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental effects is described in Section VII of the Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 7 WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Final Recirculated PEIR and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the Final Recirculated PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the City Council and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the Final Recirculated PEIR or additional environmental review of the project under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the Final Recirculated PEIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the Final Recirculated PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final Recirculated PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, acting as lead agency for the project. Section 3. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of "substantial importance," as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Final Draft Recirculated PEIR that would require recirculation of the PEIR. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 of 7 Section 4. The City Council hereby: A. Certifies the Final Recirculated PEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. B. Adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, after balancing the significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, recreation, and population and housing impacts of the proposed project against the benefits of the proposed project. C. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; makes implementation of the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the project; and finds that in the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. D. Approves the project, based upon the entire record before it, including the Final Recirculated PEIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented. E. Directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County of Orange Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the City Council's final project approval. Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of , 2021. Vicente Sarmiento Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By:! John M. Funk Sr. Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 of 7 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2021-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7of7 EXHIBIT All materials for Exhibit A may be accessed at: https://www.santa-ana.org/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-documents and are also on file and available at the City's Planning and Building Agency. Exhibit B CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Santa Ana STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report ("EIR") prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -1- October 2021 (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta ll).) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001 ["an alternative 'may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record"'].) An alternative may also be rejected because it "would not 'entirely fulfill' [a] project objective." (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.AppAth 296, 314-315.) "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta Il, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -2- October 2021 (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR"), the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final PEIR), the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Recirculated Draft PEIR"), and the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final Recirculated PEIR") for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, SCH No. 2020029087 (collectively, the "PEIR"), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Facts ("Findings") are hereby adopted by the City of Santa Ana ("City") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for adoption and implementation of the Santa Ana General Plan Update ("Proposed Project"). This action includes the certification of the following: ■ Santa Ana General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2020029087 A. DOCUMENT FORMAT These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section I provides an introduction. 2) Section II provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -3- October 2021 3) Section III provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section IV sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be —as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period —either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the proposed project. 5) Section V sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the PEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to project design features and/or mitigation measures, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section V also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the PEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6) Section VI sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. 7) Section VI sets forth the statement of overriding considerations for the proposed project. 8) Section VIII sets forth the resolution regarding certification of the PEIR 9) Section IX sets for the resolution adopting a mitigation and monitoring plan for the proposed project. 10) Section X sets for the resolution regarding custodian of records for the proposed project. B. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project ■ The Draft PEIR for the proposed project ■ The Recirculated Draft PEIR Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -4- October 2021 ■ The Final PEIR for the proposed project ■ The Final Recirculated PEIR for the proposed project including the Updated Draft PEIR (Volume II and III of the Final Recirculated PEIR) ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Recirculated Draft PEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Recirculated Draft PEIR ■ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments ■ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR, Recirculated Draft PEIR, Final PEIR and Final Recirculated PEIR ■ The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Santa Ana, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations ■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings ■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). C. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -5- October 2021 Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City's Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Division Counter. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -6- October 2021 II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. PROJECT LOCATION Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of Newport Beach. Orange County is surrounded by the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego and is one of six counties comprising the Southern California Region. Santa Ana is bordered by Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, Tustin to the east, Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel in its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area. Regional access to the city is provided by the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and the Orange Freeway (SR-57) on the north, the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) on the northeast, the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) on the east, and the San Diego Freeway (1-405) on the south. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In March 2014, the City Council adopted the Santa Ana Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan was the result of an extensive community outreach process and established specific goals, objectives, and strategies to guide the City's major efforts. One of the key strategies identified was to complete a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU) will provide long-term policy direction to guide the physical development, quality of life, economic health, and sustainability of the Santa Ana community through 2045. The General Plan Update will identify areas of opportunity and provide options to enhance development potential in key areas of the city. It will also bring the city into compliance with recent State laws, reflect current conditions, and incorporate input from the general public, City staff, and other stakeholders. The proposed GPU is organized into three sections: I, Services and Infrastructure; 11, Natural Environment; and III, Built Environment. The proposed GPU addresses the eight topics required by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements of the general plan. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace the 16 elements of the current General Plan. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014-2021 housing element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort in early 2022 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed General Plan update are: Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -7- October 2021 Mandatory Topics ■ Land Use Element ■ Circulation Element ■ Housing Element ■ Open Space Element ■ Conservation Element ■ Safety Element ■ Noise Element Optional Topics ■ Public Services Element ■ Urban Design Element ■ Community Element ■ Economic Prosperity Element ■ Historic Preservation Element The proposed GPU is comprehensive both in its geography and subject matter. It addresses the entire territory within the plan area's boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with management of the plan area. The GPU also includes forecasts of long-term conditions and outlines development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. The GPU can be found online at https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan. The General Plan Policy Framework can be accessed at https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general- plan/documents/General Plan PolicyFrameworkMaster.DRAFT. cmo2.pdf. Coordination and consistency are essential between the elements of the GPU, but in particular with the land use element. The circulation element, which identifies proposed improvements to the transportation system, may impact surrounding land uses and future development. The urban design element sets forth policies and programs to improve the city's design and urban form. The conservation element protects and maintains the city's natural, cultural, and other resources, with a focus on preserving aesthetics and the environmental quality of the city. Both the land use element and the circulation element are described in more depth below. Focus areas and specific plan/special zoning areas are also described. Updated Land Use Element The updated land use element will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, use, and revitalization/restoration) within the plan area by designating land uses as shown in the proposed land use map. Figure 3-7 of the Updated Draft PEIR (Volume II of the Final Recirculated PEIR) shows the 13 proposed land use designations of the General Plan update, and Table 3-4 gives a general description of the land use designations that are added to the GPU and were not in the current General Plan. Land use designations define the type and nature of development that would be allowed in a given location of the plan area. The land use designations and patterns are intended to provide the basis for more detailed zoning designations and development intensities, requirements, and standards established in the City's development code. It is important to note that the updated land use element is a regulatory document that defines the framework for future growth and development in the plan area but does not directly result in Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -8- October 2021 development in and of itself. Before any project can be developed in the plan area, it must be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan Update, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Updated Circulation Element The circulation element update is integrally related to federal, state, and regional transportation programs as well as local plans and regulations. The City's role in transportation planning has become increasingly important because recent legislation in the areas of growth management, congestion management, and air quality require more active local coordination to meet regional objectives. Furthermore, the circulation element update is intended to guide future development of the city's transportation system in a manner consistent with the updated land use element. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) details proposed street classifications to reflect buildout of the city's roadway system. The street classifications include Freeway, Major Arterial, Primary Arterial, Secondary Arterial, Divided Collector Arterial, and Collector Arterial. As part of the implementation of complete streets principles,' a series of modifications to the city's roadway network has been identified and includes both the reclassification of roadways and assignment of new MPSH roadway classifications to selected existing streets. A number of proposed roadway reclassifications, adoptions, and removals from the MPSH are as follows: ■ Reclassified as Divided Collector Arterial: Santa Clara Avenue west of Tustin Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) • Flower Street between Warner Avenue and 1 st Street (currently Secondary Arterial) • Chestnut Avenue between Standard Avenue and eastern city limit (currently Secondary/Primary Arterial) • Raitt Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard (currently Secondary Arterial) • Civic Center Drive between Fairview Street and Bristol Street (currently Secondary Arterial) • Penn Way between 1-5 on/off ramps and Washington Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) • Santiago Street between 15th Street and 6th Street (currently Secondary Arterial) • Standard Avenue between 6th Street and Warner Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) Complete streets are transportation facilities that are planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -9- October 2021 . Santa Ana Boulevard between French Street and Santiago Street (currently Primary Arterial) . Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Flower Street (currently Major Arterial) . Cambridge Street between Fairhaven Avenue and SR-22 freeway (currently Local Arterial) Hazard Avenue between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (currently Secondary Arterial) Halladay Avenue between Warner Avenue and Dyer Road (currently Secondary Arterial) McFadden Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Grand Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) Broadway between 1st Street and 17th Street (currently Secondary Arterial) 4th Street between French Street and Grand Avenue (currently Primary/Secondary Arterial) Fairhaven Avenue from Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) ■ Reclassified as Primary Arterial: . Santa Ana Boulevard between Flower Street and Ross Street (currently a Major Arterial) 1st Street between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue (currently Major Arterial) ■ Reclassify as Collector Arterial: Civic Center Drive between French Street and Santiago Street (currently a Secondary Arterial) ■ Add the following to the MPSH as Divided Collector Arterial: . Greenville Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Warner Avenue ■ Add the following to the MPSH as Collector Streets: . Civic Center Drive between Spurgeon Street and Santiago Street (currently Local Street) Broadway from Anahurt Street to Main Street (currently Local Road) ■ Remove the following from the MPSH . Memory Lane from the City Center Drive to SR-22 . Wright Street from 14th Street to Fruit Street . 4th Street from French Street to Ross Street . Washington Avenue from Broadway to Main Street 10th street from Broadway to Main Street Columbine Avenue from Main Street to 55 FWY Halladay street from Dyer Road to Alton pkwy Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -10- October 2021 The majority of the proposed reclassifications aim to reduce existing rights -of -way for vehicular traffic lanes to make room for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Landmark streets are also identified within or adjacent to the Santa Ana Downtown Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The circulation element update incorporates the proposed Santa Ana -Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project, which will introduce new transit service to the city. Santa Ana is working with Garden Grove and Orange County Transit Authority to build a fixed guideway system called the OC Streetcar. Expected to begin operations in 2021, the OC Streetcar will link the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center to a new multimodal hub at Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove. OC Streetcar will serve historic downtown Santa Ana and Civic Center. Along its four -mile route, OC Streetcar will connect with 18 Orange County Transit Authority bus routes and increase transportation options along Santa Ana Boulevard, 4th Street, the Pacific Electric right-of-way, and Harbor Boulevard. Focus Areas 1. South Main Street Focus Area The South Main Street focus area introduces the opportunity for greater flexibility and a more dynamic mix of land uses and urban design along the properties fronting Main Street. The intent is to transition an auto -dominated corridor into a transit- and pedestrian -friendly corridor through infill development without disrupting the surrounding lower -density neighborhoods. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Facilitate redevelopment and property improvements along Main Street. ■ Create a more active and dynamic streetscape. ■ Protect established residential neighborhoods. ■ Support transit, pedestrian, and nonmotorized travel. The majority of properties fronting Main Street will be designated Urban Neighborhood, allowing for future development to include commercial uses, low- and medium -density housing, or a combination of both in a vertically mixed -use format. South of Warner Avenue, the Industrial/Flex designation will offer new options for small-scale manufacturing, live -work, and retail opportunities. The balance of the focus area will remain designated for Low Density Residential or Institutional to reflect the existing development patterns and land uses. New buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low -density neighborhoods while still emphasizing the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. 2. Grand Avenue / 17th Street Focus Area The Grand Avenue / 17th Street focus area will foster the development of an urban mixed -use corridor connecting into the city's downtown and transit core. The intent is to create opportunities Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -11- October 2021 for a new mix of land uses and design to transition Grand Avenue from a series of auto -oriented shopping plazas to a series of dynamic urban spaces. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Create mixed -use corridors and urban villages. ■ Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. ■ Foster community spaces and neighborhood -serving amenities. ■ Develop opportunities for live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. ■ Maintain compatible nodes of commercial activity. The majority of land in this focus area is planned for Urban Neighborhood or District Center land use designations, which will allow a blend of residential and commercial uses to develop simultaneously, as market conditions allow. An intense mixed -use area is envisioned adjacent to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center, along the east side of Grand Avenue south of 1-5. This part of the focus area will support larger, more visually dynamic buildings and urban spaces that complement and benefit from the adjacent regional transit center. North of 1-5, the buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low -density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. A mix of residential, retail, and office will be interspersed along the frontage of Grand Avenue, with a concentrated node of commercial and mixed -use residential uses at Grand Avenue and 17th Street. A small portion of the focus area is designated for Industrial/Flex and General Commercial to support small-scale manufacturing, live -work, and retail opportunities will be located along 17th Street near the Regional Transportation Center. 3. West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area The West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area connects the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan area and Downtown Santa Ana, and the OC Streetcar Project improvements will create the physical transit link in 2022. The intent is to transition a group of auto -oriented neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions into a series of transit -oriented neighborhoods that support and benefit from future streetcar stops. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Develop housing and mixed -use opportunities near streetcar stations. ■ Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. ■ Buffer industrial land uses and residential neighborhoods. ■ Create opportunities for clean industrial/maker-type spaces. 4. 55 Freeway / Dyer Road Focus Area The 55 Freeway / Dyer Road focus area will transition from almost exclusively professional office to a range of commercial, industrial/flex, and mixed -use development. The intent is to create opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Provide housing opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the city's edge. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -12- October 2021 ■ Enhance opportunities for corporate offices. ■ Attract economic activity into the city from surrounding communities. ■ Protect industrial and office employment base. ■ Maintain hotel and commercial uses. The overall scale and experience of the focus area along the freeway and city boundary will reflect an urban intensity and design, with inspiring building forms and public spaces. At the southeastern edge, the District Center land use designation will facilitate large residential mixed -use developments in structures that incorporate high -density housing, hotels, and complementary expansions of commercial uses. Adjacent to the 55 freeway, the Industrial/Flex land use designation will promote large-scale office -industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development uses. The node surrounding the freeway interchange will remain as currently planned for General Commercial uses, with new improvements introducing development and spaces that complement the existing examples and elements. South Bristol Street Focus Area The South Bristol Street focus area represents Santa Ana's southern gateway and is a part of the South Coast Metro area. Between Sunflower and Alton Avenues, the District Center land use designation will create opportunities to transform auto -oriented shopping plazas to walkable, bike - friendly, and transit -friendly urban villages that incorporate a mix of high intensity office and residential living with experiential commercial uses. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro area. ■ Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike friendly, and transit oriented. ■ Provide for mixed -use opportunities while protecting adjacent, established, low -density neighborhoods. Between MacArthur Boulevard and Alton Avenue, the form and intensity will scale down but remain distinctly urban in nature. The redevelopment of the auto -oriented commercial plazas will result in the construction of landmark buildings and structures set in and around spaces accessible to future occupants and the general public. The corridor north of Alton Avenue is planned with the Urban Neighborhood land use designation, allowing for commercial and residential projects, frequently in a mixed -use format, to develop in accordance with market fluctuations. The buildings and spaces in this part of the focus area will be sensitive to the surrounding low -density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -13- October 2021 Specific Plan/Special Zoning There are seven planning areas that represent specific plans and other special zoning areas that were previously adopted: Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area (2014), Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan (1991/2018), Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (2014), MainPlace Specific Plan (2019), Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (2007/2018), Midtown Specific Plan (1996), and Transit Zoning Code Specific Development (2010). The most recent adoption/amendment date for each document is noted in parentheses. Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, Section 41-1651 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, provides alternative building and fire standards for the conversion of eligible buildings, or portions thereof, from nonresidential uses to dwelling units, guest rooms or joint living, and work quarters. Eligible structures are buildings within the Adaptive Reuse project incentive area that were constructed in accordance with building and zoning codes in effect prior to July 1, 1974, or which have been determined to be a Historically Significant. The Project Incentive Area includes properties in the Midtown Specific Plan area; the Transit Zoning Code area; the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone; the North Main Street Corridor on both sides of Main Street, from 17th Street to the northernmost MainPlace Drive; and the East 1 st Street Corridor on both sides of 1 st Street from Grand Avenue to Elk Lane. Residential uses are allowed in the Project Incentive Area irrespective of the underlying zoning as part of an approved Adaptive Reuse Project. Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan covers the 2.5-mile segment of Harbor Boulevard on the west side of Santa Ana. The approximately 305-acre planning area includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Avenue as well as parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan creates the zoning necessary to take advantage of the regional and local transit investments made along and around Harbor Boulevard. The plan expands development options to include residential alongside or integrated into a mix of nonresidential uses. MainPlace Specific Plan The purpose of the MainPlace Specific Plan is to transform MainPlace mall into a family -oriented retail, entertainment, and dining destination. The plan creates a mixed -use urban village with a revitalized mall at its central core. The Specific Plan area is on the north edge of Santa Ana, between Main Street on the east and SR-22 and 1-5 to the north and west. The property is identified in the current General Plan land use element as District Center. The District Center designation includes the major activity areas of the city, designed to serve as anchors to the city's commercial corridors and to accommodate major development activity. No General Plan amendment is required for the specific plan, and the MainPlace Specific Plan is the zoning for the property and defines the allowable uses within its boundaries. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -14- October 2021 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone The Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone consists of an original MEMU Overlay Zone and an expansion component. The original MEMU Overlay Zone is largely developed with commercial and office uses and comprises approximately 200 acres immediately east of the 1-5 and immediately west of SR-55. It is bounded by 1-5 on the west and south, Tustin Avenue on the east, and East Sixth Street on the north. The MEMU expansion area added 33.52 acres or approximately 48 parcels to the original MEMU Overlay Zone area. The additional project area extends west primarily along First Street and is generally bounded by the 1-5 to the east, Grand Avenue to the west, East Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Fourth Street to the north. The overall objectives of the MEMU Overlay Zone are to encourage a more active commercial and residential community, provide an expanded economic base, maximize property sales tax revenues, improve the jobs/housing balance within the city, and provide for a range of housing options identified in the 2014 housing element. Midtown Specific Plan The Midtown Specific Plan area is generally bounded by 17th Street to the north, Civic Center Drive to the south, North Ross Street to the west, and North Spurgeon Street to the east. The Midtown area is readily accessible from the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). Midtown is envisioned as an integrated district of civic, business, cultural, and retail activity with a small residential component. Transit Zoning Code Specific Development The City adopted a Transit Zoning Code to provide zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods; to allow for the reuse of existing structures; to provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing; and to provide a transit -supportive, pedestrian -oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure. The code encompasses an area in the central urban core of Santa Ana that comprises over 100 blocks and 450 acres. The area is west of 1-5 and bounded by First Street on the south, Flower Street on the west, Grand Avenue on the east, and Civic Center Drive on the north. General Plan Buildout Scenario In general, many areas currently designated for General Commercial and Professional Office will expand opportunities for residential development by a proposed change in General Plan land use designation to Urban Neighborhood or District Center. Industrial Flex will be introduced in each of the five focus areas and replace Industrial land use designations that currently exist to allow for cleaner industrial and commercial uses with live -work opportunities. Furthermore, state law allows a graduated density bonus for the inclusion of affordable housing units For an increasing amount of affordable units (by percentage), a project is allowed an increasing ability to exceed the permitted density (up to a cap of 35 percent). Recent updates to state housing law (Assembly Bill 1763, effective January 1, 2020), enables projects that are 100 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -15- October 2021 percent affordable (either 100 percent lower income or 80 percent lower and 20 percent limited moderate), to obtain a density bonus of 80 percent, or no limit if within one-half mile of a major transit stop. However, not every proposed project pursuant to the GPU would include affordable units, and not every project that includes affordable units would need a density bonus. Proposed projects pursuant to the GPU are not required to build at densities that exceed maximum limits; the law only requires that jurisdictions grant the density bonus if requested. The buildout methodology for the GPU was based on past development trends, current development trends, and a forecast market analysis. These trends accounted for any units approved (density bonus or otherwise), to determine the appropriate density and amount of development to assume. Additionally, the optimal density of affordable units is at or below the density levels assumed for forecasting buildout. Generally, projects beyond 50 to 70 units per acre require Type 1 construction (steel and concrete structure), which is much more expensive than Type V construction (wood structure). Accordingly, affordable projects are rarely greater than 70 units per acre except for very small parcels. The average densities used to calculate projected buildout at 2045 are 50 to 90 units per acre in the three most intense focus areas; 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, Grand Avenue/17th Street, and South Bristol Street focus areas. For the remaining two focus areas, a residential assumption at 30 units per acre was used over a broad area to account for development at or above the maximum density of 30 units per acre. The maximum is 20 units per acre for projects proposed exclusively residential in the South Main Focus Area. The maximum is 30 units per acre for a relatively small part of the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area. The City's buildout projections are therefore considered to include and account for the application of density bonus provisions of state law to future projects. Furthermore, the potential for development in specific plan and special zoning areas is based on the forecast buildout at the time of the respective zoning document's adoption, minus the amount of new development built between the adoption date and 2019. Growth outside of the focus areas and special planning areas is expected to be incremental and limited. Some growth was projected for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. Some growth was also projected for the commercial and retail area south of the West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area. Finally, some additional residential development is expected on a small portion (5 percent) of single-family and multifamily lots through the construction of second units. For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation. C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS Project development requires the following discretionary actions and approvals from the City: ■ Adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan update ■ Certification of PEIR Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -16- October 2021 ■ Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ■ Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the Santa Ana General Plan update D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The updated General Plan is based on a vision statement and core values established as part of an extensive, multiyear community outreach effort. The City has identified the following core values to guide the General Plan Update (GPU): ■ Health. The people of Santa Ana value a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents. ■ Equity. Residents value taking all necessary steps to ensure equitable outcomes, expanding access to the tools and resources that residents need, and balancing competing interests in an open and democratic manner. ■ Sustainability. Santa Ana values land use decisions that benefit future generations, plans for the impacts of climate change, and incorporates sustainable design practices at all levels of the planning process. ■ Culture. The Santa Ana's community values efforts that celebrate our differences as a source of strength, preserve and build upon existing cultural resources, and nurture a citywide culture of empowered residents. ■ Education. Santa Ana values the creation of lifelong learners, the importance of opening up educational opportunities to all residents, and investing in educational programs that advance residents' economic well-being. These core values were used as the basis to define more specific project objectives to aid decision makers in their review of the GPU and associated environmental impacts. The objectives include: 1. Promote infill development while respecting and protecting established neighborhoods. 2. Optimize high density residential and mixed -use development that maximizes potential use of mass transit. 3. Provide locations for new housing development that maximizes affordable housing opportunities to achieve both City and regional housing goals. 4. Facilitate new development at intensities sufficient to generate community benefits and attract economic activity. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -17- October 2021 5. Provide housing and employment opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City's edge. g. Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike -friendly, and transit -oriented. 7. Develop opportunities for live/work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -18- October 2021 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Santa Ana CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. ■ The City of Santa Ana concluded that a PEIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from February 26, 2020, through March 27, 2020. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on February 26, 2020. The notice was published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation. Under CEQA, a lead agency may proceed directly with preparation of a PEIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that a PEIR will be required (State CEQA Guidelines § 15060[d]). The City of Santa Ana made such a determination for this project and did not prepare an Initial Study. ■ Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Santa Ana to participate. The scoping meeting for the PEIR was held on March 5, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. at the Santa Ana Police Community Room at 60 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on February 26, 2020. ■ Preparation of a Draft PEIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 45- day public review period (August 3, 2020, through September 16, 2020) and extended to October 6, 2020. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft PEIR was sent to all persons, agencies, and organizations on the list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, and published in the August 3, 2020, Orange County Register. The NOAwas posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on August 3, 2020. Copies of the Draft PEIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the City of Santa Ana Public Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download on City website: https://www.santa- ana.org/general-plan. ■ The Final PEIR contained comments on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft PEIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final PEIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final PEIR. ■ At its November 91 2020, public hearing, the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final PEIR and continue work on the GPU to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana's environmental justice (EJ) communities. ■ The City performed an intensive, extended community outreach program conducted between January and May 2021 as described in Section 2.4 of the Updated Draft PEIR (Volume II of the Recirculated Final PEIR). ■ Pursuant to Draft PEIR comments, the Planning Commission public hearing, and an expanded EJ community outreach program, the City made the decision to prepare a Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -19- October 2021 Recirculated Draft PEIR to discuss and evaluate impacts related to environmental justice, to conclude that the recreation -related impacts of the proposed GPU would result in a significant impact, and to define a new project alternative to reduce recreational impacts. ■ The City recirculate the Draft PEIR chapters that had been revised and the NOAwas released for a 45-day public review period from August 6, 2021 through September 20, 2021. The NOA directed reviewers to only submit comments on the revised Draft PEIR chapters included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR since the comments in the Final PEIR adequately addressed comments received on portions of the Draft PEIR that had not been recirculated. ■ One September 13th, the City conducted a Planning Commission Study Session to discuss the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Verbal comments from the public, received during the Study Session were addressed in the Final Recirculated PEIR. ■ After considering the PEIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the project will result in significant effects on the environment; however, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and the City has determined that remaining significant effects are acceptable under Section 15093. ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. The City of Santa Ana finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties. ■ The City of Santa Ana finds that the project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare. ■ The City of Santa Ana hereby certifies the Final Recirculated PEIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. ■ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final Recirculated PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the project files; b) copy of the Final Recirculated PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to all CEQA "responsible" agencies. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -20- October 2021 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS Based on the public scoping process (including review of NOP responses and input at the public scoping meeting), in addition to analysis prepared for the Draft PEIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues (see Updated Draft PEIR, Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant). It was determined, therefore, that these potential environmental issues would be precluded from detailed discussion in the Draft PEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft PEIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft PEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The City does not have any significant agricultural resources. Additionally, Santa Ana has no land designated or zoned for agricultural use and does not have any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Santa Ana does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or zoned Timberland Production. (b) Wildfire: According to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) in an SRA to the City of Santa Ana is a high FHSZ about 4.0 miles east along the western edge of Loma Ridge. The nearest FHSZ in an LRA is about 3.8 miles away at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. The city is not in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs. Additionally, no area in the city is on the wildland-urban interface. All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in the Draft PEIR. B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE PEIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with existing regulations, as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Updated Draft PEIR. (a) Aesthetics: Buildout under the GPU will be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana's existing skyline. Buildout under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -21- October 2021 highways. The GPU would also create new sources of light or glare in the project area, but adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes. (b) Biological Resources: Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waterways. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP as the City is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (c) Cultural Resources: The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (d) Energy: Implementation of proposed policies under the GPU, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (e) Geology and Soils: The plan area's location and underlying geology make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP Zoning Act in the plan area. Additionally, all structures that would be constructed in accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as found in the latest CBC. Most of the plan area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction; however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with respect to slope stability, as the plan area is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Future development in the plan area would require connection to the City's sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the installation of septic tanks. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -22- October 2021 (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Construction and operations under the GPU would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority would be required throughout the duration of project construction. GPU buildout is expected to result in some increase in the number of hazardous waste generators; however, hazardous wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, US Department of Transportation, CalRecycle, and other agencies. Use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in conformance with regulations would reduce both the likelihood of an accidental release and the potential consequences in the event of an accidental release. The plan area includes 555 sites on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Any development, redevelopment, or reuse on or next to any of these sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional to ensure that the project would not disturb hazardous materials on any of the hazardous materials sites or plumes of hazardous materials diffusing from one of the hazardous materials sites, and that any proposed development, redevelopment, or reuse would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Santa Ana is in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. Projects approved under the proposed GPU would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. The buildout of the GPU would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes, and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Buildout would not interfere with operation of the City's Emergency Operations Center and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination and cooperation between such agencies. Santa Ana is not in a designated fire hazard zone, and implementation of the GPU will not expose structures and/or residences to wildland fire danger. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: Projects pursuant to the GPU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the demand on groundwater use but would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the amount of pervious surfaces in the plan area, but could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in some focus areas in a manner which would result in flooding off -site or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, development pursuant to the GPU would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation or impede or redirect flood flows. Development Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -23- October 2021 pursuant to the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (i) Land Use Planning: Implementation of the GPU would not divide an established community. Additionally, the GPU would be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport. Implementation of the GPU would be consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments' RTP/SCS. Implementation of the GPU would also be consistent with the OCTA Congestion Management Plan. (j) Mineral Resources: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (k) Noise: The proximity of the plan area to an airport or airstrip would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport -related noise. (1) Population and Housing: The proposed GPU would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist. Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not displace people and/or housing. (m) Public Services: The GPU would introduce new structures and allow for up to 22,361 new residents and workers in the OCFA and Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel, as well as increasing the service needs for the Main Library and the Newhope Library Learning Center. The GPU would also generate additional students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of the Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Orange Unified School District. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval the project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection services, police protection, library services, or school services. (n) Transportation and Traffic: The GPU is consistent with adopted programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, GPU implementation would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) in comparison to existing City conditions, and would achieve a VMT/SP at least 15 percent lower than the countywide VMT/SP. Finally, circulation improvements associated with future development that would be accommodated by the GPU would be designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. (o) Utilities and Service Systems: Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a functioning and effective process in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure will support future developments under the Santa Ana GPU. Additionally, OCSD and OC Water District have adequate capacity to serve development pursuant to the GPU in addition to the providers existing commitments. Development Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -24- October 2021 pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. However, the City would have adequate capacity for the proposed increases in water flows across the city under implementation of the GPU and would be able to serve the additional dwelling units and commercial square footage proposed. Furthermore, GPU policies encourage the maintenance and upgrade of water infrastructure through impact fees from new development, and the exploration of other funding sources. Water supply would be adequate to meet development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed stormwater drainage facilities would be able to accommodate proposed development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate development pursuant to the GPU and comply with related solid waste regulations. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power and natural gas. However, the net increases in natural gas demands due to the GPU buildout are within the amounts that SoCalGas forecasts that it will supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -25- October 2021 V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the PEIR, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined —pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3." A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the PEIR, the impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-6: Industrial land uses accommodated under the General Plan update could create other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Industrial land uses associated with the GPU may generate potentially significant odor impacts for a substantial number of people. Impacts from potential odors generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with the GPU are considered less than significant. Impacts associated with construction -generated odors are considered less than significant. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -26- October 2021 The Industrial and Industrial Flex land uses are not anticipated to produce odors, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and facilities would comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, Impact 5.2-6 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to: • Wastewater treatment plants • Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities • Fiberglass manufacturing facilities • Painting/coating operations • Large -capacity coffee roasters • Food -processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project's site plan. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 2. Biological Resources Impact 5.3-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species. The inventory of existing conditions determined that no parcels with a proposed land use designation that allows for development (i.e., not an open space designation) currently has Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -27- October 2021 sensitive vegetation. All parcels currently have ruderal vegetation and little to no biological value. Therefore, there is no current indication that future development in accordance with the GPU would have significant unavoidable biological impacts. However, the programmatic analysis prepared for this GPU was not at the detailed, site -specific analysis required for a specific development project. Site -specific analyses could reveal biological resources not identified in the Biological and Natural Resources Report. Therefore, there is a potential for biological impacts associated with implementation of the GPU. Therefore, implementation of the GPU could result in a potentially significant impact. The letter received from CDFW states that the Santa Ana River and its tributaries historically supported federally endangered southern California steelhead. CDFW's letter requests that the Draft PEIR include an analysis of any proposed major stream crossings in the context of fish passage, and states that the analysis should include, but not be limited to, steelhead presence or historic presence, existing conditions including habitat and barrier assessments, any known projects to remove barriers or restore habitat that would affect or be affected by this project, and cumulative impacts to steelhead populations and/or habitat resulting from this project. The GPU does not propose any major stream crossings. If any future development project entails improvements for stream crossings (e.g. Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek), project -level CEQA compliance would require a biological resources report that would address potential impacts to endangered species, including the California steelhead. Impact 5.3-1 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site -specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -28- October 2021 Impact 5.3-4: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species. The City of Santa Ana is largely urbanized, and migration corridors are generally limited to the Santa Ana River and the Santiago Creek. Development under the GPU would result in the further infill of the city and removal of vacant sites. The GPU would not change land use designations of parcels that encompass the Santa Ana River or the Santiago Creek. However, development under the GPU could further result in vegetation removal, intrusion by humans and pets, and increased noise and air pollutants, which could impact wildlife movement and nesting sites. Therefore, the buildout of the GPU could affect wildlife movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law. Impact 5.3-4 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measures Refer to BIO-1 above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 3. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-2: Development in accordance with the General Plan Update could impact archaeological resources. Development involving ground disturbance within the plan area has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Typically, surface -level and subsurface archaeological sites and deposits can be affected by ground -disturbing activities associated with most types of construction. Based on literature review and records searches, eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the plan area, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation. While most of the plan area has been developed over the course of the twentieth century, buried resources may remain in areas where developments such as parking lots, parks, or structures with shallow foundations have required only minimal ground disturbance. A review of historical and ethnographic maps indicates a moderate likelihood that intact subsurface archaeological resources would be encountered during redevelopment. Archaeological resources impacts are site specific, but more intensive development can result in cumulative impacts on a regional level and should be considered in addition to individual project Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -29- October 2021 impacts on individual sites. As determined by the respective lead agency on a project by project basis, Phase I Cultural Resources studies would be required before ground disturbances and demolition activities are permitted to occur. The study would identify resources on the affected project sites that are, or appear to be, eligible for listing on the National or California Register. Such studies would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 were developed to reduce potential individual and cumulative impacts associated with future development and redevelopment. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires an archaeological resources assessment be conducted for future development projects to identify any known archaeological resources and sensitivity of the site. Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 detail the next steps required should the archaeological resources assessment identify known resources or determine the site to have high or moderate resource sensitivity. Upon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7, individual and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade —prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground -disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -30- October 2021 and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground -disturbing construction and pre -construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -31- October 2021 above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 4. Geology and Soils Impact 5.6-4: Future development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update could imaact known and unknown aaleontoloaical resources. Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Adoption of the GPU in itself will not directly affect paleontological resources. Long-term implementation of the GPU land use plan could allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb paleontological resources. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by the GPU could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Review and protection of paleontological resources are also afforded by CEQA for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the GPU, subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the GPU. Fossil localities have been found in the vicinity of the plan area, although not in the plan area itself. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO-1, areas that range from high to low sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. With adherence to mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, Impact 5.6-4 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having "high" paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities. GEO-2 Low -to -High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with "low -to -high" paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -32- October 2021 underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PER. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 5. Noise Impact 5.12-3: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the GPU may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration. Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction activity at projects within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor -building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and equipment for future project -level developments under the GPU are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -33- October 2021 With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations - related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less -than -significant levels. No significant and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain. Operational Vibration Impacts. Commercial and industrial operations within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment -generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor -building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. In addition, future sensitive receptors could be placed within close proximity to existing railroad lines through buildout in the plan area. Because specific project -level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify future vibration levels at vibration -sensitive receptors that may be near existing and future vibration sources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations - related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less -than -significant levels. No significant and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain. Mitigation Measures N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non -engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -34- October 2021 this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. N-3 New residential projects (or other noise -sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. N-4 During the project -level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 6. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 5.17-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The Sacred Land File search yielded positive results, indicating that known tribal resources exist within the plan area. Further, a CHRIS records search at SCCIC indicates that 23 archaeological resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the plan area. Of these resources, eight archaeological resources were located within the plan area; these include four prehistoric sites with habitation debris and lithic scatters, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation. While the city is urbanized and most of the plan area has been developed, buried resources may remain in areas of minimal ground disturbance, such as parks, parking lots, and structures with shallow foundations. Tribal cultural resources are site specific in nature. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -35- October 2021 Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.17-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). Future development as a result of the implementation of the GPU could include grading in portions of the City with sensitivity to tribal cultural resources. Grading and construction activities that require more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources. Future development could potentially unearth previously unknown or unrecorded tribal cultural resources. Because the NAHC SLF search yielded positive results and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation identified sensitive areas within the city, the buildout of the GPU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Earthwork activities may occur with buildout under the GPU that could impact previously undisturbed tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -36- October 2021 B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the GPU where mitigation measures were found to be either infeasible or would not lessen impacts to less than significant. The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-1: The additional population growth forecast for the General Plan Update and the associated emissions would not be consistent with the assumptions of the air aualitv manaaement clan. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-45 of the Updated Draft PEIR. The GPU would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under the GPU would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Buildout of the GPU would exceed current population estimates for the city, and therefore the emissions associated with the additional population are not included in the current regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, overall, the GPU would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 into future development projects for the operation phase would contribute to reduced criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU. Additionally, goals and policies in the GPU would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below South Coast AQMD thresholds. In addition, the population and employment assumptions of the AQMP would continue to be exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates the projections of the GPU. Therefore, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -37- October 2021 projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site -specific development that require refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in for the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant -provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star —certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star —certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -38- October 2021 finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. However, the City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the General Plan Update could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold criteria. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-47 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Buildout of the GPU would occur over a period of approximately 25 years or longer. Construction activities associated with buildout of the GPU could generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD'S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction -related activities to the extent feasible. However, construction time frames and equipment for site -specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction -related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction -related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -39- October 2021 incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive -dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD's Rule 403, such as: ■ Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. ■ Apply water every four hours to active soil -disturbing activities. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super -Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD's website. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -40- October 2021 technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would generate long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD's threshold criteria. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-48 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Buildout in accordance with the GPU would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD's regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, in addition to the goals and policies of the GPU, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants in the city. Further, compared to existing baseline year conditions, emissions of NOx, CO, and SOx are projected to decrease from current levels despite growth associated with the GPU. However, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of the overall land use development associated with the GPU. Contributing to the nonattainment status would also contribute to elevating health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants. It is speculative for this broad -based GPU to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment, since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions, or how many additional individuals in the air basin would suffer health effects. South Coast AQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the SoCAB, and at the present time it has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in the Friant Ranch case. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground -level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health -based standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the ambient air quality standards. However, because cumulative development within the city would exceed the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -41- October 2021 Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-2, above. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-4: Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-50 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Buildout of the GPU could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants JAC). Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent, project -level environmental review by the City of Santa Ana. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of the GPU would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. Though individual projects would achieve the project -level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of risk in the SoCAB. Therefore, the GPU's cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -42- October 2021 Mitigation Measures AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel - powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and shall include all applicable stationary and mobile/area source emissions generated by the proposed project at the project site. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on -site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -43- October 2021 Impact 5.2-5: Development and operation of land uses accommodated by the General Plan Update could generate emissions that exceed the localized significance thresholds and expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air Dollutants. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-53 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project -related construction activities and large emitters of on -site operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD's Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the GPU and therefore also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, to the extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-5 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would also be applicable in reducing construction- and operation -related LST impacts. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -44- October 2021 2. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-1: Buildout consistent with the General Plan Update could impact an identified historic resource. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, starting on page 5.4-26 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Generally, potential impacts to historical resources resulting from future projects developed pursuant to the GPU would be mitigated by the City's fulfillment of its statutory responsibilities under CEQA. However, for certain development pursuant to the GPU, the City may determine that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided. The City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits. Though the possible demolition or alteration of a historical resource cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. With fulfillment of the CUL-1 and CUL-2, future development consistent with the GPU would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. However, if significant impacts cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources are documented consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-3. The Historical Resources Technical Report determined that unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from future development under the GPU will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible but will still be significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Therefore, the development under the GPU would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -45- October 2021 rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character -defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character -defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary's Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorial ization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -46- October 2021 changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.7-1: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a decrease in GHG emissions in horizon year 2045 from existing baseline but may not meet the long-term GHG reduction goal under Executive Order S-03-05. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, starting on page 5.7-31 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City is tracking and monitoring the City's GHG emissions in order to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term, year 2050, GHG reduction goal set by Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, there is no plan past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Advancements in technology in the future could provide additional reductions and allow the state and City to meet the 2050 goal, but in the meantime, Impact 5.7-1 would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan's progress toward achieving the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following: Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -47- October 2021 • GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. • Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP: ■ Administration and Staffing ■ Finance and Budgeting ■ Timelines for Measure Implementation ■ Community Outreach and Education ■ Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management ■ Tracking Tools Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 4. Noise Impact 5.12-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the plan area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting on page 5.12-29 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction noise could result in a temporary Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -48- October 2021 substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program -level impact does not preclude the finding of less -than -significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Mitigation Measures N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best -available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor's representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -49- October 2021 unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line -of -sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.12-2: Buildout of the plan area would cause a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting on page 5.12-30 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential interior noise impacts to future noise -sensitive receptors below the thresholds. However, there are no feasible or practical mitigation measures available to reduce project -generated traffic noise to less than significant levels for existing Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -50- October 2021 residences along affected roadways. No individual measures and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce project -generated traffic noise to less than significant levels in all cases. Thus, traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. It should be noted that the identification of this program -level impact does not preclude the finding of less - than -significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure N-2, above. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 5. Population and Housing Impact 5.13-1: The GPU would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, starting on page 5.13-12 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Full buildout of the GPU would result in a population of 431,629, and the city's 2045 population growth would be approximately 20 percent greater than the Orange County Council of Governments' 2045 projections. Furthermore, the city's housing units at buildout would be 115,053, which exceeds the Orange County Council of Governments' projection by 38 percent. There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -51- October 2021 Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout. Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -52- October 2021 6. Recreation Impact 5.15-1: The General Plan Update would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, starting on page 5.15-27 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Although required park fees for development could be sufficient to fund new parks and improvements, there is a lack of available land and lack of land designated as Open Space within the General Plan Update to develop new parks or expand existing facilities. The City of Santa Ana is essentially built. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure REC-1 to monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area would contribute to reducing impacts to existing public parks within a '/z radius of the focus area. Compliance with this mitigation measure, regulatory requirements, and implementation of proposed GPU policies and implementation actions would reduce the potential impact of the proposed GPU on existing park facilities. However, because of the existing park deficiencies and scale of development in park -deficient areas, the project's impact would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures REC-1 The City shall monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area. Development proposals for projects including 100 or more residential units shall be required to prepare a public park utilization study to evaluate the project's potential impacts on existing public parks within a one half (1/2) mile radius to the focus area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the new resident population to impact existing public parks within the radius. Each study shall also consider the cumulative development in the Dyer/55 Fwy and the potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius. If the study determines that the project, or it's incremental cumulative impacts would result in a significant impact (substantial physical deterioration or substantial acceleration of deterioration) to existing public parks, the project shall be required to mitigate this impact. Measures to mitigate the significant impact may include but are not limited to land dedication and fair -share contribution to acquire new or to enhance existing public parks within the radius. Mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -53- October 2021 Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.15-2: Population increases resulting from project implementation would increase recreation demands that would require construction or expansion of recreation facilities that would have potential to result in physical impacts to the environment. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, starting on page 5.15-29 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Population increases resulting from the implementation of the GPU would increase recreation demands and require construction or expansion of recreation facilities. Although construction and/or expansion of new parks and recreation facilities would be subject to GPU policies and implementation actions; regulatory requirements, and future, project specific environmental review under CEQA, it is still possible that development of such facilities could result in significant unavoidable impacts Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts to recreation at buildout. Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -54- October 2021 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). As discussed above, the PEIR identified significant impacts in a number of categories. The following impacts could be mitigated below a level of significance: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, tribal cultural resources impacts. The following impacts cannot be mitigated below a level of significance: certain air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, population and housing, and recreation impacts. The PEIR analyzed four alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce some, if not all, of the impacts. A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING "Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[c]). Alternative Circulation Element— Roadway Classifications. The proposed circulation element in the GPU evolved over a long process and coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). During this process, alternative packages of arterial roadway classifications were considered that involved roadways in OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The majority of reclassifications proposed were identified for bicycle facility safety improvements in the City's Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) Plan, prepared in 2016. Most of the reclassifications identified were for roadways where bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements would require roadway reconfiguration and a reduction in the number of existing or planned travel lanes. Many of the SMSA recommendations across the city have already been, or are in the process of being, implemented along arterial roadways without reducing the number of lanes. A cursory review of two optional roadway reclassification packages was conducted to determine whether these optional plans would have the potential to eliminate significant impacts of the proposed GPU and meet most the project objectives. It was determined that a detailed evaluation of this alternative was not needed to provide a reasonable range of EIR project alternatives. Transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant (VMT/SP falls below the significance threshold for the GPU without mitigation). Although these alternatives may have some potential to reduce VMT (by reducing the number of travel lanes for some roadways) and thereby also potentially reduce air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic noise impacts, these alternatives would also result in more inconsistencies with the MPAH and result in more traffic congestion. Although traffic congestion is no longer a CEQA consideration, the GPU sets forth standards for level of service that will be considered by decision -makers. Moreover, the Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -55- October 2021 Reduced Density and RTP/SCS Consistency alternatives were determined to be meaningful alternatives to consider for the potential of reducing air quality, GHG, and traffic noise impacts. Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative. Since traffic noise was determined to be a significant, unavoidable impact of the proposed GPU, a project alternative designed to eliminate this significant impact was considered. The required reductions in traffic volumes (ADT) were determined along roadways where buildout of the GPU would result in significant noise increases. These estimates were compared to the surrounding land uses that would generate ADTs for those roadway segments. Traffic noise along these roadways would both exceed the noise standard and abut sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). Several segments would experience significant, unavoidable traffic noise impacts without the land use changes proposed under the GPU. Since significant traffic noise could not be avoided, further evaluation of this alternative was not deemed to be meaningful. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Given the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed GPU, project alternatives with the potential to substantially reduce development were identified for further review. Significant GPU impacts to long-term air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, and recreation all directly relate to the level of development that would occur within the city. At the programmatic level of this GPU PEIR, site -specific information regarding potential significant historical impacts is not available, and therefore, an alternative could not be customized to reduce that impact. A reduced intensity alternative would also be expected to reduce the significant traffic noise impact (as discussed above). A reduced park demand alternative was also analyzed to address the significant and unavoidable impacts to recreation. The following development alternatives to the proposed GPU were chosen for further analysis. No Project / Current General Plan Alternative The evaluation of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. The No Project alternative is typically defined as the development scenario that would occur if the project as proposed is not adopted. For a General Plan, the No Project alternative is typically represented by the jurisdiction's existing General Plan, including land use plan, circulation master plan, and policies in each General Plan element. Therefore, this alternative assumes that the existing General Plan —with various adoption dates for different elements between 1982 and 2014—would remain in effect. This existing General Plan also reflects amendments, including new Specific Plans and special zoning areas that have been adopted through the Notice of Preparation for this GPU. Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -56- October 2021 opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 11 impact categories, reduced impacts to 5 environmental impacts, and increase impacts to 4 categories. Impacts would be similar for agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce impacts for aesthetics, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation would increase. This alternative does not mitigate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the GPU to a less than significant impact. It would also exceed the City's VMT threshold. Overall, impacts under this alternative would decrease in comparison to the proposed project. The No Project/Current General Plan alternative would not achieve many of the proposed project objectives. The existing land use plan does not provide the opportunities to provide housing and employment at the levels required to meet local and regional goals. Moreover, the No Project alternative would not provide numerous general policies as included in the GPU to achieve these goals and invigorate communities. The current General Plan, however, protects established neighborhoods and several Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas would provide for infill opportunities, protect established neighborhoods, and result in mixed -use villages and bike- and pedestrian -friendly communities. Reduced Intensity Alternative (Reduced capacity for the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas) Under the GPU, the only areas that include revisions to land use designations to accommodate new growth are within the five focus areas. The majority of remaining growth would occur within previously approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. A nominal amount of growth is assumed to occur in other areas of the city and would not require land use amendments. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would substantially reduce development capacity within two focus areas, 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol Street, which accommodate approximately 65 percent of the housing unit growth and 72 percent of the nonresidential use (by building square footage) of the growth projected for the combined focus areas under the GPU. For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation. For this alternative, development of the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the maximum allowed per the land use designations. This alternative would reduce housing units by a total of 5,383 and would reduce total building square footage by approximately 4.2 million square feet distributed between these two focus areas. This alternative would also reduce population by 19,825 and jobs by 9,184. Overall, this alternative would reduce the housing growth accommodated by the GPU land use changes by approximately 18 percent and reduce nonresidential building square footage by approximately 27 percent. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -57- October 2021 Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 7 impact categories, reduce impacts to 12 categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and services. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project. The Reduced Density Alternative reduces the level of development for two of the five focus areas (55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol Street) relative to the GPU. No other changes to the GPU are made for this alternative. It is assumed to include the same General Plan policies and would not modify the circulation element or related improvements. Therefore, this alternative would attain many of the project's objectives. It would not "optimize" high density housing and mass transit opportunities, and so was found not to attain objective No. 2. It would, however, achieve objectives Nos. 3 through 5, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With the reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol focus areas, it would not be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities, and may not be as economically feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed -use opportunities that are bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative (Reduced development for RTP/SCS population/housing consistency) This alternative was developed to evaluate an update to the General Plan that would be consistent with the population and housing projections used to develop the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) most recent Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)—Connect SoCal (adopted May 7, 2020). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The plan embodies a collective vision for the region's future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -58- October 2021 Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The proposed GPU would result in a significant population and housing impact because development under the GPU would substantially exceed the projections used in Connect SoCal. SCAG uses locally prepared population and housing projections to develop the regional plan. For the City of Santa Ana, those projections were provided by the Orange County Council of Governments, as prepared by the Center for Demographic Research. The population/housing figures reflected for Santa Ana in the regional plan for 2045 are: population, 360,100; total housing units, 80,100; and total jobs, 176,400. Projections for the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) use land use designations as approved in adopted general plans. The employment projections are similar for the GPU and RTP/SCS scenarios, but the RTP/SCS projections for population and housing units are substantially lower than GPU projections (18 percent and 27 percent lower, respectively). The RTP/SCS alternative, therefore, represents the least -development -intensive project alternative evaluated for the PEIR. ■ This alternative would substantially reduce the growth that would be accommodated within the focus areas under the GPU. New growth within the focus areas would total 6,380 housing units and approximately 3.7 million square feet of nonresidential uses, instead of a total additional 23,955 housing units and approximately 15.7 million square feet within the focus areas. This alternative distributes anticipated development through the focus areas and the approved Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas. For purposes of this alternative, it is assumed that a development cap would be used to limit total growth to the projections shown. ■ Subsequent updates of the regional plan would incorporate updated land use from the GPU and resolve the substantial discrepancy between the population and housing projections. Note also that the PEIR concludes that the GPU is consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS. This alternative has been defined to eliminate the significant impact associated with substantial population growth that is inconsistent with the regional plan, as well as reduce other significant growth -related (AQ/GHG, traffic noise) impacts associated with the GPU as proposed. Finding. The City Council rejects the 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would reduce impacts to 12 environmental impacts, result in similar impacts to 6 categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. It would reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Impacts would be very similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. It would increase impacts to land use and planning. It would also increase impacts to transportation and Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -59- October 2021 potentially introduce a new significant impact. It is anticipated, however, that under this alternative, transportation could be mitigated to less than significant. Under the GPU, transportation impacts are less than significant without mitigation. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. The impact to population and housing would be reduced to less than significant. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Due to the substantial reduction in housing opportunities citywide, this alternative is the least effective in achieving the project objectives of the GPU. By setting a development cap to limit housing and nonresidential development to the projections for the city in the 2020 RTP/SCS, this alternative reduces housing units by 31,515 compared to the GPU. It reduces housing development potential within the focus areas by 73 percent in comparison to the GPU, and reduces overall city future development by 27 percent. To achieve this reduction, the development cap would not only limit focus area development but would restrict the entitled housing in Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas (reducing total housing within these areas by almost 14,000 units). This alternative clearly would not optimize high density housing that maximizes mass transit use (objective No. 2) or provide urban -level intensities at the urban edges (objective No. 3). Moreover, it would not facilitate intensities that attract economic activities, particularly since it would not allow the maximum entitlement of approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. It would achieve the remainder of the objectives, but to a lesser extent than the GPU. It would protect established neighborhoods, but not promote infill development as much as the GPU or other alternatives (objective No. 1). It would provide only limited opportunities for live -work and artist spaces and small-scale manufacturing (objective No. 7). Reduced Park Demand Alternative The City's Park standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents is not achieved under existing conditions and development allowed under the GPU would further exacerbate park and open space shortages. Without new parks, growth in any of the focus areas would exacerbate the current level of park deficiency either in or adjacent to disadvantaged communities. The areas proposed for substantial new residential development under the GPU were compared to the distribution of existing parks —location, size, and demand —to define the Reduced Park Demand Alternative. The Reduced Park Demand Alternative reduces residential growth by 11,225 units by eliminating or reducing residential land uses and intensity in the five focus areas. Overall, nonresidential square footage would be reduced by a total of approximately 2.8 million square feet within the focus areas compared to the proposed GPU. The nonresidential square footage would increase, however, in two of the focus areas: 17th Street/Grand Avenue by 697,000 square feet, and South Bristol by 739,000 square feet. New residential growth under this alternative would largely be in currently planned areas that are generally near a substantial number of existing park facilities. Some residential growth would be introduced into two focus areas at substantially lower intensities to reduce the potential impact on park facilities. Changes to the focus areas are as follows: ■ South Main Street. This focus area would remain as currently planned as a commercial corridor (GC) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) and District Center (DC) to reduce intensity Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -60- October 2021 so that there are no additional units constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a significant presence of EJ communities that are served by parks, but the existing parks are very small. ■ South Bristol Focus Area. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity by 2,273 units on sites that are more than a half mile from existing parks (generally west of Bristol and south of MacArthur Boulevard). ■ Grand Avenue/17th Street. Stay as currently planned as a lower density residential (LR-7) and commercial corridor (GC) to reduce intensity so that there are no additional units constructed beyond existing conditions, because much of the focus area is more than a half mile from existing parks. ■ West Santa Ana Boulevard. This focus area would remain as currently planned with lower density residential (LR-7) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity so that no additional units are constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a significant presence of EJ communities with areas that are farther than a half mile from existing parks in this focus area. ■ 55 Freeway/Dyer Road. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity by 5,381 units because a majority of the area is more than a half mile from existing parks in Santa Ana; the reduced intensity would also reduce potential impacts on adjacent parkland in Tustin. Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Park Demand Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 6 impact categories, reduced impacts to 12 categories, and increased impacts to 2 categories. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and services. It would reduce the recreation impacts of the proposed GPU, as it was designed to do, and would improve the park acres/resident ratio compared to the proposed GPU. Recreation impacts to disadvantaged communities would also be reduced. Given the lack of available land for new parks, however, it would not eliminate the significant, unavoidable impact of the project. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -61- October 2021 population and housing, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project. This alternative would attain some of the project's objectives. It would promote infill development to a lesser extent than the GPU and would protect established neighborhoods (Objective 1), and would also develop opportunities of live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing (Objective 7). Given the substantial reduction in housing units, it was also concluded that it would not meet Objectives 2 and 3, to maximize high density residential development and mixed use proximate to potential mass transit use (Objective 2) and to maximize affordable housing and achieve City and regional housing goals (Objective 3). It would, however, achieve Objectives 4 through 6, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With new opportunities eliminated in three focus areas and the reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway /Dyer Road and South Bristol focus areas, it would not be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities and may not be as economically feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed - use opportunities that are bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" and, in cases where the "No Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the GPU, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as "environmentally superior" to the GPU: ■ The RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative is concluded to be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed GPU. Both the Reduced Density and RTP/SCS alternatives reduce environmental impacts in comparison to the GPU, but the RTP/SCS reduces more impacts and eliminates a significant, unavoidable impact of the GPU. This alternative was designed to eliminate the significant population impact of the GPU, but it also reduces potential future development more than any of the other alternatives. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -62- October 2021 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the PEIR for General Plan Update (project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states: a. CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -63- October 2021 with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project, none of which both meets the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project, for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this project, and having reviewed the PEIR for the GPU, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project. B. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the project, and each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project are as follows: 1. The community, land use, and public services elements of the project encourage healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and policies and practices that improve the health of residents. The policies also affirm and support a socially and economically diverse community with equitable distribution of resources. 2. Implementation of the GPU fulfills one of the key strategies identified in the Santa Ana Strategic Plan in the completion of a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. 3. The project improves the jobs -housing balance; the ratio of 1.5 would give the city a more equal distribution of employment and housing. The population growth resulting directly from the proposed GPU would be offset by the level of employment opportunity provided to the city's residents and workers commuting into Santa Ana. 4. The project results in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) and a reduction in related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions compared with existing conditions because the GPU includes policies that promote the reduction of VMT. Policy 2.5 of the land use element encourages infill mixed -use development at all ranges of affordability to reduce VMT, and policy 4.5 aims to concentrate development along high -quality transit corridors. Policy 4.6 of the circulation element promotes reductions in automobile trips and VMT by encouraging transit use and nonmotorized transportation as alternatives to augmenting roadway capacity. 5. The project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -64- October 2021 6. Implementation of the project would introduce policies and actions that address the importance of protecting the health of residents and the environment by improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging active transportation. 7. The project implements the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) land use policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. 8. The project facilitates the economic development of the city by promoting development that is mixed use, pedestrian friendly, transit oriented, and clustered around activity centers through new and infill residential development. Additionally, the proposed project would improve the city's jobs/housing balance by supporting development that provides housing and employment opportunities to enable people to live and work in Santa Ana. 9. Implementation of the project would coordinate air quality planning efforts to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards by considering the goals of the Climate Action Plan in all major decision on land use and public infrastructure investment and investing in low- to zero -emission vehicles. These policies also promote development that meets or exceeds standards for energy -efficient building design, and the consideration of sensitive of potential emission sources on sensitive uses. 10. The project promotes economic growth and diversity within the city. The economic prosperity element of the GPU includes policies related to improving Santa Ana's economy and its role within the region. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -65- October 2021 Vill. RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE PEIR The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Recirculated PEIR in evaluating the proposed project, that the Final Recirculated PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final Recirculated PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City of Santa Ana declares that no new significant information, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Recirculated Draft PEIR that would require further recirculation. The City of Santa Ana certifies the PEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions: Findings: The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the PEIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section V of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (project -related and cumulative), cultural resources (project - related), greenhouse gas emissions (project -related), noise (project -related), population and housing (project -related), recreation (project -related). Conclusions 1. Except the impacts (stated above) relating to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas, noise, population and housing, and recreation all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the PEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. Other alternatives to the proposed project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed project. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed project. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -66- October 2021 IX. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -67- October 2021 X. RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these records is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: 1. The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project. 2. The Draft PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 3. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Draft PEIR and the 20-day extension to the comment period. 4. The Final PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, including comments received on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices. 5. The Recirculated Draft PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 6. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Recirculated Draft PEIR. 7. The Final Recirculated PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, including comments received on the Recirculated Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices. 8. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the project. 9. All findings, resolutions, and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the General Plan Update, and all documents cited or referred to therein. 10. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 11. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the General Plan Update PEIR up through project approval. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 12. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -68- October 2021 13. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The following location is where the record may be reviewed: City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 This page intentionally left blank. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -69- October 2021 EXHIBIT C October 2021 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Santa Ana General Plan Update City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Contact: Melanie G. McCann, Principal Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 mmccann@santa-ana.org Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION........................................................... 6 List of Tables Table Page Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics.............................................................................. 3 Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary.............................................................................................................. 5 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements...................................................................... 7 October 2021 Page i GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. Page PlaceWl'orks 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Final Recirculted Program Environmental Impact Report. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Santa Ana monitoring requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision subsection (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. (b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. (c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead October 2021 Page 1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. The MMRP will serve to document compliance with adopted/certified mitigation measures that are formulated to minimize impacts associated with future development that would be accommodated by the Santa Ana General Plan. 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The GPU is the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan Update is to comprehensively update the 1982 plan to reflect current conditions, establish a shared vision of the community's aspirations, and create the policy direction to guide Santa Ana's long-term planning and growth over the next two decades. The General Plan Update will include the City's future development goals and will provide policy statements to achieve those goals. Implementation actions related to each goal or policy will be included as a separate Implementation Plan to ensure successful monitoring of progress as a community. Furthermore, the GPU will focus on five areas in Santa Ana that are better suited for future development or overall improvement. These focus areas are: ■ South Main Street ■ Grand Avenue/ 17th Street ■ West Santa Ana Boulevard ■ 55 Freeway/Dyer Road ■ South Bristol Street General Plan Update The updated General Plan is organized into three sections: Services and Infrastructure (1), Natural Environment (II), and Built Environment (III). The proposed GPU addresses the seven topics required by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace 16 existing elements. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014-2021 Housing Element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort in late 2021 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed GPU are: Page 2 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mandatory Topics ■ Land Use Element ■ Circulation Element ■ Housing Element ■ Open Space Element ■ Conservation Element ■ Safety Element ■ Noise Element Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Optional Topics ■ Public Services Element ■ Urban Design Element ■ Community Element ■ Economic Prosperity Element ■ Historic Preservation Element The GPU will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the plan area by designating land uses in the proposed land use map and through implementation of updated goals and policies of the GPU. Table 1-1 outlines the proposed land use designations under the GPU. Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics Land Use Designation Acres % of Total Grand Avenue/17th Street 171.5 - District Center 23.7 13.8 General Commercial 19.9 11.6 Industrial/Flex 7.1 4.1 Open Space 1.1 0.6 Urban Neighborhood 119.7 69.8 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 354.5 - District Center 158.0 44.6 General Commercial 68.0 19.2 Industrial/Flex 127.4 35.9 Open Space 1.1 0.3 South Bristol Street 199.9 - District Center 108.3 54.2 Open Space 6.0 3.0 Urban Neighborhood 85.7 42.9 South Main Street 312.2 - Industrial/Flex 29.0 9.3 Institutional 19.2 6.1 Low Density Residential 162.3 52.0 October 2021 Pne 3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics Land Use Designation Acres % of Total Urban Neighborhood 101.7 32.6 West Santa Ana Boulevard 481.6 - Corridor Residential 10.0 2.1 General Commercial 21.5 4.5 Industrial/Flex 87.9 18.3 Institutional 45.5 9.4 Low Density Residential 108.1 22.4 Low -Medium Density Residential 6.8 1.4 Medium Density Residential 27.0 5.6 Open Space 133.6 27.7 Professional and Administrative Office 6.2 1.3 Urban Neighborhood 35.0 7.3 Balance of City 11,598.8 - District Center 124.2 1.1 General Commercial 424.2 3.7 Industrial 2,159.6 18.6 Institutional 886.7 7.6 Low Density Residential 6,173.3 53.2 Low -Medium Density Residential 429.0 3.7 Medium Density Residential 335.3 2.9 One Broadway Plaza District Center 4.1 0.0 Open Space 793.8 6.8 Professional and Administrative Office 260.4 2.2 Urban Neighborhood 4.1 0.0 Not Specified 4.1 0.0 Total 13,118.5 100% Source: Figures aggregated and projected by PlaceWorks, 2020. The full buildout scenario is analyzed in comparison to existing conditions. Table 1-2 details buildout statistics. Similarly, the PEIR provides conclusions regarding impact significance for this scenario for both the proposed GPU and project alternatives. Page 4 PlaceVorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary PLANNING AREA BUILDOUT Housing Units Bldg. Sq. Ft.' Jobs FOCUS AREAS 23,955 15,684,285 35,044 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 9,952 6,142,283 13,302 Grand Avenue/17th Street 2,283 703,894 1,622 South Bristol Street 5,492 5,082,641 11,192 South Main Street 2,308 946,662 2,151 West Santa Ana Boulevard 3,920 2,808,805 6,777 SPECIFIC PLAN / SPECIAL ZONING 20,524 16,958,445 39,702 Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone2 1,260 976,935 2,567 Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan 135 143,139 282 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan 4,622 1,967,982 1,578 MainPlace Specific Plan 1,900 2,426,923 5,380 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone 5,551 4,685,947 12,258 Midtown Specific Plan 607 1,818,253 4,615 Transit Zoning Code 6,449 4,939,266 13,022 ALL OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY3 70,574 40,325,086 95,670 CITYWIDE TOTAL 115,053 72,967,816 170,416 Source: City of Santa Ana 2020. 1 Only includes nonresidential building square footage. 2 The figures shown on the row for the Adaptive Reuse Overlay represents parcels that are exclusively in the Adaptive Reuse Overlay boundary. Figures for parcels that are within the boundaries of both the Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone and a specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area boundary are accounted for in the respective specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area. 3 The City has included an assumption for growth on a small portion (5 percent) of residential parcels through the construction of second units, which is distributed throughout the city and is not concentrated in a subset of neighborhoods. Additional growth includes known projects in the pipeline and an increase of 10 percent in building square footage and employment for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. The city is bordered by the city of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area. October 2021 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Draft PEIR and Recirculated Draft PEIR, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring and reporting that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the MMRP. To effectively track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared (see Table 1-3). Page 6 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible I Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor 5.2 AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for Prior to Project Applicant City of Santa City of Santa development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental discretionary and Construction Ana Building Ana Building Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall approval Contractor Safety Division Safety prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project Division construction -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction -related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive -dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD's Rule 403, such as: • Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Apply water every four hours to active soil -disturbing activities. • Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. October 2021 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super -Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD's website. AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for Prior to the Property Owner/ City of Santa City of Santa development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental discretionary Developer Ana Building Ana Building Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall approval Safety Division Safety prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project Division operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site -specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug- in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. Page 8 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant -provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star —certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star —certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. October 2021 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project Prior to future Property Owner/ City of Santa City of Santa applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that discretionary Developer Ana Building Ana Building 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day project approval Safety Division Safety or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel -powered transport Division refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and shall include all applicable stationary and mobile/area source emissions generated by the proposed project at the project site. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on -site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan. AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is Prior to future Property Owner/ City of Santa City of Santa determined that a development project has the potential to emit discretionary Developer Ana Building Ana Building nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan project approval Safety Division Safety shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Division Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to: • Wastewater treatment plants Page 10 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities • Fiberglass manufacturing facilities Painting/coating operations • Large -capacity coffee roasters • Food -processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project's site plan. 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb Concurrent with Project Applicant/ City of Santa City of Santa vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified submittal of site Developer Ana Building Ana Building biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site- development plans Safety Division Safety Division specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified and prior to the biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a issuance of biological resource assessment for the project, including an grading permits assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Prior to issuance Project City of Santa City of Santa Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources of grading permits Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or Developer Safety Division Safety historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Division October 2021 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of Prior to any Property Owner City of Santa City of Santa the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be disturbance of a or Project Ana Building Ana Building used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects historical resource, Applicant/ Safety Division Safety involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a as determined by Developer Division historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not the intensive -level impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards historical shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect evaluation of a meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification property Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character -defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character -defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary's Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Page 12 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorial ization. If the City Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical grading permits, Developer Safety Division Safety resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and for any Division and may also require additional public education efforts and/or subsequent permit memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or involving alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially excavation to impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation increased depth of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. October 2021 Page 13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade— issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground -disturbing grading permits Developer Safety Division Safety activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Division Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and Prior to any ground Project City of Santa City of Santa impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Developer Safety Division Safety Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to Division any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). Page 14 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building resources, a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor activities Developer Safety Division Safety approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native Division American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground -disturbing construction and pre - construction activities in areas of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards. This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. October 2021 Page 15 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure activities Developer Safety Division Safety CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall Division be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously During ground Project City of Santa City of Santa undisturbed areas mapped as having "high" paleontological sensitivity disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time Developer Safety Division Safety basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units Division during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities.. Page 96 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor GEO-2 Low -to -High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building mapped with "low -to -high" paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), grading permits Developer Safety Division Safety the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to Division confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or During ground Project City of Santa City of Santa geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified Developer Safety Division Safety paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the Division point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Every five years City of Santa City of Santa City of Santa every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan's progress Ana Building Ana Building Ana Building toward achieving the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target Safety Division in Safety Division Safety and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified coordination with Division level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG Project emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 Applicant/ for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG Developer emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following: October 2021 Page 17 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. • Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP: • Administration and Staffing • Finance and Budgeting ■ Timelines for Measure Implementation ■ Community Outreach and Education ■ Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management ■ Tracking Tools Furthermore, the following measures will be considered when the City updates the Climate Action Plan: • Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations • Measure to increase carbon sinks • Standards for electric vehicle parking • Standards for construction projects 5.12 NOISE MEM N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for Prior to issuance Project City of Santa City of Santa construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction of demolition, Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and/or Developer and Safety Division Safety grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa building permits Architect Division Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best -available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design, Page 18 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise - sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor's representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the October 2021 Page 19 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line -of -sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building resources, 100 feet of non -engineered timber and masonry buildings building permits Developer Safety Division Safety (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete Division and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. N-3 New residential projects (or other noise -sensitive uses) located within Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal building permits Developer Safety Division Safety Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. Division Page 20 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor N-4 During the project -level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near building permits Developer and Safety Division Safety sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to Acoustical Division assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the Engineer operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. 5.15 RECREATION REC-1 The City shall monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa Fwy focus area. Development proposals for projects including 100 or issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building more residential units shall be required to prepare a public park occupancy permits Developer Safety Division Safety utilization study to evaluate the project's potential impacts on existing Division public parks within a one half (1/2) mile radius to the focus area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the new resident population to impact existing public parks within the radius. Each study shall also consider the cumulative development in the Dyer/55 Fwy and the potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius. If the study determines that the project, or it's incremental cumulative impacts would result in a significant impact (substantial physical deterioration or substantial acceleration of deterioration) to existing public parks, the project shall be required to mitigate this impact. Measures to mitigate the significant impact may include but are not limited to land dedication and fair -share contribution to acquire new or to enhance existing public parks within the radius. Mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 5.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, Prior to the Project City of Santa I City of Santa I trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade— issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground -disturbing grading permits Developer Safety Division October 2021 Page 21 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Safety Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist Division that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and Prior to any ground Project City of Santa City of Santa impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Developer Safety Division Safety Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to Division any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground -disturbing activities Developer Safety Division Safety construction and pre -construction activities in areas with previously I I I I Division Page 22 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure activities Developer Safety Division Safety CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall Division be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any October 2021 Page 23 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Page 24 PlaceVorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. October 2021 Page 25 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2020-06 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, in 1982, the City of Santa Ana last completed a comprehensive update to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, various elements of the General Plan have been amended and adopted from time to time; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana seeks to adopt a comprehensive update to the Santa Ana General Plan ("project" or "General Plan Update"); and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update identified the following five focus areas for potential change and new growth: South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street; and WHEREAS, the total long-term potential growth within these focus areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non-residential building square footage, and 6,616 jobs; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update also requires the certification of the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report and related documents that have been completed for the project, which approval will be concurrent with the approval of the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to SB 1000, the City is required to address Environmental Justice in the General Plan Update due to a number of disadvantaged communities located within the City; and WHEREAS, the goals, policies, and implementation items associated with environmental justice have been selectively placed within the majority of the updated General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) the revision to the State mandated Elements of the General Plan; (2) the inclusion of optional Elements to the General Plan; and (3) approval of General Plan Amendment Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 5 (GPA) No. 2020-06, which would result in a comprehensive update to the existing General Plan; and WHEREAS, the General Plan is a community -wide vision document that is intended to address and respond to community needs, with staff conducting outreach with community members about the process to as wide an audience as possible; and WHEREAS, over the past six years, an extensive public outreach campaign to engage the public was conducted to supplement the feedback, input and direction for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. Early public outreach efforts included hosting over 60 community meetings and workshops; hosting individual community workshops within each of the five Focus Areas with over 300 residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders participating in the workshops; distributing an online community survey with over 650 respondents to collect input on the content of the General Plan; the mailing of approximately 44,000 informational flyers to property owners and tenants; presentations at neighborhood Communication Linkages (CommLink) meetings; outreach meetings with Environmental Justice groups (Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Logan Neighborhood Association, Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Association); and attendance at approximately 100 CARES events within environmental justice communities to discuss the General Plan Update with residents; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR") that was prepared for the General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087), at which the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Draft PEIR and continue work on the General Plan Update to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana's environmental justice (EJ) communities and in view of the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, in 2021, a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Recirculated Draft PEIR") was prepared as a supplemental analysis to the original Draft PEIR to reflect updates to the General Plan Update and based on an intensive, extended community outreach program conducted by the City between January and May 2021; and . WHEREAS, in collaboration with neighborhood and community serving organizations, the City reached out through direct mailers, yard signs, and social media to promote awareness of the General Plan Update, and participation in an EJ survey and 10 EJ virtual community forums. In August 2021, an in -person Open House was hosted to share results of outreach, EJ partnerships, and proposed General Plan policies and programs focused on improving environmental health and quality of life in EJ communities; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, Planning work-study sessions were held on August 9, 2021, and August 23, 2021, and a public hearing on September 13, 2021; and Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2of5 WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Recirculated PEIR and General Plan Update. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Recirculated PEIR, adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approve the project; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Recirculated PEIR, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted to certify the Final Recirculated PEIR, adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approve the project. The City Council hereby incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, Resolution No. 2021-XXX certifying the Recirculated PEIR and adopting the findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana as follows: Section 1. The above recitals are true and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The General Plan Amendment consists of amendments to 11 Elements of the General Plan and text updates, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The City Council has concurrently reviewed, certified and adopted the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06, attached respectively as Exhibits B, C, and D. The City hereby finds and determines that all potential environmental impacts of the project, including the amendments to the General Plan, have been fully analyzed in the PEIR. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record to support a fair argument that the project may result in any significant environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the certified PEIR. Section 4. The General Plan Amendment, Recirculated Final Program Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are online, and on file and available for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California 92702. Section 5. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3of5 Section 6. The current General Plan will be consolidated into 12 elements, with 11 Elements being comprehensively updated including the Community Element, the Mobility Element, the Economic Prosperity Element, the Public Services Element, the Conservation Element, the Open Space Element, the Noise Element, the Safety Element, the Land Use Element, the Historic Preservation Element, and the Urban Design Element. Section 7. The Housing Element is on a separate update schedule and will be updated in 2022 in compliance with State law. Section 8 The new and updated goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan will be coordinated and consistent throughout the General Plan document. Section 9. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the General Plan Amendment is a comprehensive update to the existing General Plan that is intended to address issues such as incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies between General Plan goals or policies, and will mitigate adverse impacts to the environment. Section 10. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth below: A. The General Plan Amendment shall not take effect unless and until Environmental Impact Report No. 20200029087 is certified by the City Council. B. General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 shall not take effect unless and until the City Council overrules the Determination of Inconsistency by the Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County. Section 11. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of )2021. Vicente Sarmiento Mayor Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: John M. Funk Sr. Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2021-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A All materials for Exhibit A may be accessed at https://www.santa-ana.org/general- plan/draft-documents and are also on file and available at the City's Planning and Building Agency. EXHIBIT B All materials for Exhibit B may be accessed at: https://www.santa-ana.org/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-documents and are also on file and available at the City's Planning and Building Agency. Exhibit C CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL RECIRCULATED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Santa Ana STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that a number of written findings be made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report ("EIR") prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -1- October 2021 (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta ll).) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001 ["an alternative 'may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record"'].) An alternative may also be rejected because it "would not 'entirely fulfill' [a] project objective." (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.AppAth 296, 314-315.) "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta Il, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -2- October 2021 (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, independently reviewed, and considered the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR"), the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final PEIR), the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Recirculated Draft PEIR"), and the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ("Final Recirculated PEIR") for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, SCH No. 2020029087 (collectively, the "PEIR"), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Facts ("Findings") are hereby adopted by the City of Santa Ana ("City") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for adoption and implementation of the Santa Ana General Plan Update ("Proposed Project"). This action includes the certification of the following: ■ Santa Ana General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2020029087 A. DOCUMENT FORMAT These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1) Section I provides an introduction. 2) Section II provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -3- October 2021 3) Section III provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. 4) Section IV sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be —as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period —either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration given the nature and location of the proposed project. 5) Section V sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the PEIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to project design features and/or mitigation measures, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section V also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the PEIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. 6) Section VI sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. 7) Section VI sets forth the statement of overriding considerations for the proposed project. 8) Section VIII sets forth the resolution regarding certification of the PEIR 9) Section IX sets for the resolution adopting a mitigation and monitoring plan for the proposed project. 10) Section X sets for the resolution regarding custodian of records for the proposed project. B. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project ■ The Draft PEIR for the proposed project ■ The Recirculated Draft PEIR Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -4- October 2021 ■ The Final PEIR for the proposed project ■ The Final Recirculated PEIR for the proposed project including the Updated Draft PEIR (Volume II and III of the Final Recirculated PEIR) ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR ■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Recirculated Draft PEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft PEIR ■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Recirculated Draft PEIR ■ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ■ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments ■ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft PEIR, Recirculated Draft PEIR, Final PEIR and Final Recirculated PEIR ■ The Resolutions adopted by the City of Santa Ana in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto ■ Matters of common knowledge to the City of Santa Ana, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations ■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings ■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these documents is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). C. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -5- October 2021 Santa Ana, CA 92701. The City's Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Division Counter. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -6- October 2021 II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. PROJECT LOCATION Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of Newport Beach. Orange County is surrounded by the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego and is one of six counties comprising the Southern California Region. Santa Ana is bordered by Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, Tustin to the east, Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel in its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area. Regional access to the city is provided by the Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and the Orange Freeway (SR-57) on the north, the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) on the northeast, the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) on the east, and the San Diego Freeway (1-405) on the south. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In March 2014, the City Council adopted the Santa Ana Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan was the result of an extensive community outreach process and established specific goals, objectives, and strategies to guide the City's major efforts. One of the key strategies identified was to complete a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU) will provide long-term policy direction to guide the physical development, quality of life, economic health, and sustainability of the Santa Ana community through 2045. The General Plan Update will identify areas of opportunity and provide options to enhance development potential in key areas of the city. It will also bring the city into compliance with recent State laws, reflect current conditions, and incorporate input from the general public, City staff, and other stakeholders. The proposed GPU is organized into three sections: I, Services and Infrastructure; 11, Natural Environment; and III, Built Environment. The proposed GPU addresses the eight topics required by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements of the general plan. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace the 16 elements of the current General Plan. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014-2021 housing element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort in early 2022 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed General Plan update are: Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -7- October 2021 Mandatory Topics ■ Land Use Element ■ Circulation Element ■ Housing Element ■ Open Space Element ■ Conservation Element ■ Safety Element ■ Noise Element Optional Topics ■ Public Services Element ■ Urban Design Element ■ Community Element ■ Economic Prosperity Element ■ Historic Preservation Element The proposed GPU is comprehensive both in its geography and subject matter. It addresses the entire territory within the plan area's boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with management of the plan area. The GPU also includes forecasts of long-term conditions and outlines development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. The GPU can be found online at https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan. The General Plan Policy Framework can be accessed at https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/pb/general- plan/documents/General Plan PolicyFrameworkMaster.DRAFT. cmo2.pdf. Coordination and consistency are essential between the elements of the GPU, but in particular with the land use element. The circulation element, which identifies proposed improvements to the transportation system, may impact surrounding land uses and future development. The urban design element sets forth policies and programs to improve the city's design and urban form. The conservation element protects and maintains the city's natural, cultural, and other resources, with a focus on preserving aesthetics and the environmental quality of the city. Both the land use element and the circulation element are described in more depth below. Focus areas and specific plan/special zoning areas are also described. Updated Land Use Element The updated land use element will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, use, and revitalization/restoration) within the plan area by designating land uses as shown in the proposed land use map. Figure 3-7 of the Updated Draft PEIR (Volume II of the Final Recirculated PEIR) shows the 13 proposed land use designations of the General Plan update, and Table 3-4 gives a general description of the land use designations that are added to the GPU and were not in the current General Plan. Land use designations define the type and nature of development that would be allowed in a given location of the plan area. The land use designations and patterns are intended to provide the basis for more detailed zoning designations and development intensities, requirements, and standards established in the City's development code. It is important to note that the updated land use element is a regulatory document that defines the framework for future growth and development in the plan area but does not directly result in Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -8- October 2021 development in and of itself. Before any project can be developed in the plan area, it must be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan Update, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Updated Circulation Element The circulation element update is integrally related to federal, state, and regional transportation programs as well as local plans and regulations. The City's role in transportation planning has become increasingly important because recent legislation in the areas of growth management, congestion management, and air quality require more active local coordination to meet regional objectives. Furthermore, the circulation element update is intended to guide future development of the city's transportation system in a manner consistent with the updated land use element. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) details proposed street classifications to reflect buildout of the city's roadway system. The street classifications include Freeway, Major Arterial, Primary Arterial, Secondary Arterial, Divided Collector Arterial, and Collector Arterial. As part of the implementation of complete streets principles,' a series of modifications to the city's roadway network has been identified and includes both the reclassification of roadways and assignment of new MPSH roadway classifications to selected existing streets. A number of proposed roadway reclassifications, adoptions, and removals from the MPSH are as follows: ■ Reclassified as Divided Collector Arterial: Santa Clara Avenue west of Tustin Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) • Flower Street between Warner Avenue and 1 st Street (currently Secondary Arterial) • Chestnut Avenue between Standard Avenue and eastern city limit (currently Secondary/Primary Arterial) • Raitt Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Santa Ana Boulevard (currently Secondary Arterial) • Civic Center Drive between Fairview Street and Bristol Street (currently Secondary Arterial) • Penn Way between 1-5 on/off ramps and Washington Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) • Santiago Street between 15th Street and 6th Street (currently Secondary Arterial) • Standard Avenue between 6th Street and Warner Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) Complete streets are transportation facilities that are planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -9- October 2021 . Santa Ana Boulevard between French Street and Santiago Street (currently Primary Arterial) . Santa Ana Boulevard between Raitt Street and Flower Street (currently Major Arterial) . Cambridge Street between Fairhaven Avenue and SR-22 freeway (currently Local Arterial) Hazard Avenue between Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard (currently Secondary Arterial) Halladay Avenue between Warner Avenue and Dyer Road (currently Secondary Arterial) McFadden Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Grand Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) Broadway between 1st Street and 17th Street (currently Secondary Arterial) 4th Street between French Street and Grand Avenue (currently Primary/Secondary Arterial) Fairhaven Avenue from Grand Avenue to Tustin Avenue (currently Secondary Arterial) ■ Reclassified as Primary Arterial: . Santa Ana Boulevard between Flower Street and Ross Street (currently a Major Arterial) 1st Street between Bristol Street and Tustin Avenue (currently Major Arterial) ■ Reclassify as Collector Arterial: Civic Center Drive between French Street and Santiago Street (currently a Secondary Arterial) ■ Add the following to the MPSH as Divided Collector Arterial: . Greenville Street between Segerstrom Avenue and Warner Avenue ■ Add the following to the MPSH as Collector Streets: . Civic Center Drive between Spurgeon Street and Santiago Street (currently Local Street) Broadway from Anahurt Street to Main Street (currently Local Road) ■ Remove the following from the MPSH . Memory Lane from the City Center Drive to SR-22 . Wright Street from 14th Street to Fruit Street . 4th Street from French Street to Ross Street . Washington Avenue from Broadway to Main Street 10th street from Broadway to Main Street Columbine Avenue from Main Street to 55 FWY Halladay street from Dyer Road to Alton pkwy Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -10- October 2021 The majority of the proposed reclassifications aim to reduce existing rights -of -way for vehicular traffic lanes to make room for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Landmark streets are also identified within or adjacent to the Santa Ana Downtown Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The circulation element update incorporates the proposed Santa Ana -Garden Grove Fixed Guideway project, which will introduce new transit service to the city. Santa Ana is working with Garden Grove and Orange County Transit Authority to build a fixed guideway system called the OC Streetcar. Expected to begin operations in 2021, the OC Streetcar will link the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center to a new multimodal hub at Harbor Boulevard/Westminster Avenue in Garden Grove. OC Streetcar will serve historic downtown Santa Ana and Civic Center. Along its four -mile route, OC Streetcar will connect with 18 Orange County Transit Authority bus routes and increase transportation options along Santa Ana Boulevard, 4th Street, the Pacific Electric right-of-way, and Harbor Boulevard. Focus Areas 1. South Main Street Focus Area The South Main Street focus area introduces the opportunity for greater flexibility and a more dynamic mix of land uses and urban design along the properties fronting Main Street. The intent is to transition an auto -dominated corridor into a transit- and pedestrian -friendly corridor through infill development without disrupting the surrounding lower -density neighborhoods. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Facilitate redevelopment and property improvements along Main Street. ■ Create a more active and dynamic streetscape. ■ Protect established residential neighborhoods. ■ Support transit, pedestrian, and nonmotorized travel. The majority of properties fronting Main Street will be designated Urban Neighborhood, allowing for future development to include commercial uses, low- and medium -density housing, or a combination of both in a vertically mixed -use format. South of Warner Avenue, the Industrial/Flex designation will offer new options for small-scale manufacturing, live -work, and retail opportunities. The balance of the focus area will remain designated for Low Density Residential or Institutional to reflect the existing development patterns and land uses. New buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low -density neighborhoods while still emphasizing the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. 2. Grand Avenue / 17th Street Focus Area The Grand Avenue / 17th Street focus area will foster the development of an urban mixed -use corridor connecting into the city's downtown and transit core. The intent is to create opportunities Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -11- October 2021 for a new mix of land uses and design to transition Grand Avenue from a series of auto -oriented shopping plazas to a series of dynamic urban spaces. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Create mixed -use corridors and urban villages. ■ Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. ■ Foster community spaces and neighborhood -serving amenities. ■ Develop opportunities for live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. ■ Maintain compatible nodes of commercial activity. The majority of land in this focus area is planned for Urban Neighborhood or District Center land use designations, which will allow a blend of residential and commercial uses to develop simultaneously, as market conditions allow. An intense mixed -use area is envisioned adjacent to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center, along the east side of Grand Avenue south of 1-5. This part of the focus area will support larger, more visually dynamic buildings and urban spaces that complement and benefit from the adjacent regional transit center. North of 1-5, the buildings and spaces will be sensitive to the surrounding low -density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. A mix of residential, retail, and office will be interspersed along the frontage of Grand Avenue, with a concentrated node of commercial and mixed -use residential uses at Grand Avenue and 17th Street. A small portion of the focus area is designated for Industrial/Flex and General Commercial to support small-scale manufacturing, live -work, and retail opportunities will be located along 17th Street near the Regional Transportation Center. 3. West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area The West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area connects the Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan area and Downtown Santa Ana, and the OC Streetcar Project improvements will create the physical transit link in 2022. The intent is to transition a group of auto -oriented neighborhoods, businesses, and institutions into a series of transit -oriented neighborhoods that support and benefit from future streetcar stops. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Develop housing and mixed -use opportunities near streetcar stations. ■ Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. ■ Buffer industrial land uses and residential neighborhoods. ■ Create opportunities for clean industrial/maker-type spaces. 4. 55 Freeway / Dyer Road Focus Area The 55 Freeway / Dyer Road focus area will transition from almost exclusively professional office to a range of commercial, industrial/flex, and mixed -use development. The intent is to create opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Provide housing opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the city's edge. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -12- October 2021 ■ Enhance opportunities for corporate offices. ■ Attract economic activity into the city from surrounding communities. ■ Protect industrial and office employment base. ■ Maintain hotel and commercial uses. The overall scale and experience of the focus area along the freeway and city boundary will reflect an urban intensity and design, with inspiring building forms and public spaces. At the southeastern edge, the District Center land use designation will facilitate large residential mixed -use developments in structures that incorporate high -density housing, hotels, and complementary expansions of commercial uses. Adjacent to the 55 freeway, the Industrial/Flex land use designation will promote large-scale office -industrial flex spaces, multilevel corporate offices, and research and development uses. The node surrounding the freeway interchange will remain as currently planned for General Commercial uses, with new improvements introducing development and spaces that complement the existing examples and elements. South Bristol Street Focus Area The South Bristol Street focus area represents Santa Ana's southern gateway and is a part of the South Coast Metro area. Between Sunflower and Alton Avenues, the District Center land use designation will create opportunities to transform auto -oriented shopping plazas to walkable, bike - friendly, and transit -friendly urban villages that incorporate a mix of high intensity office and residential living with experiential commercial uses. The objectives of this focus area are: ■ Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro area. ■ Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike friendly, and transit oriented. ■ Provide for mixed -use opportunities while protecting adjacent, established, low -density neighborhoods. Between MacArthur Boulevard and Alton Avenue, the form and intensity will scale down but remain distinctly urban in nature. The redevelopment of the auto -oriented commercial plazas will result in the construction of landmark buildings and structures set in and around spaces accessible to future occupants and the general public. The corridor north of Alton Avenue is planned with the Urban Neighborhood land use designation, allowing for commercial and residential projects, frequently in a mixed -use format, to develop in accordance with market fluctuations. The buildings and spaces in this part of the focus area will be sensitive to the surrounding low -density neighborhoods but will still emphasize the creation of active and attractive urban spaces. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -13- October 2021 Specific Plan/Special Zoning There are seven planning areas that represent specific plans and other special zoning areas that were previously adopted: Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area (2014), Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan (1991/2018), Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan (2014), MainPlace Specific Plan (2019), Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (2007/2018), Midtown Specific Plan (1996), and Transit Zoning Code Specific Development (2010). The most recent adoption/amendment date for each document is noted in parentheses. Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, Section 41-1651 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, provides alternative building and fire standards for the conversion of eligible buildings, or portions thereof, from nonresidential uses to dwelling units, guest rooms or joint living, and work quarters. Eligible structures are buildings within the Adaptive Reuse project incentive area that were constructed in accordance with building and zoning codes in effect prior to July 1, 1974, or which have been determined to be a Historically Significant. The Project Incentive Area includes properties in the Midtown Specific Plan area; the Transit Zoning Code area; the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone; the North Main Street Corridor on both sides of Main Street, from 17th Street to the northernmost MainPlace Drive; and the East 1 st Street Corridor on both sides of 1 st Street from Grand Avenue to Elk Lane. Residential uses are allowed in the Project Incentive Area irrespective of the underlying zoning as part of an approved Adaptive Reuse Project. Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan covers the 2.5-mile segment of Harbor Boulevard on the west side of Santa Ana. The approximately 305-acre planning area includes parcels adjacent to Harbor Boulevard between Westminster Avenue and Lilac Avenue as well as parcels along Westminster Avenue, 1st Street, and 5th Street. The Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan creates the zoning necessary to take advantage of the regional and local transit investments made along and around Harbor Boulevard. The plan expands development options to include residential alongside or integrated into a mix of nonresidential uses. MainPlace Specific Plan The purpose of the MainPlace Specific Plan is to transform MainPlace mall into a family -oriented retail, entertainment, and dining destination. The plan creates a mixed -use urban village with a revitalized mall at its central core. The Specific Plan area is on the north edge of Santa Ana, between Main Street on the east and SR-22 and 1-5 to the north and west. The property is identified in the current General Plan land use element as District Center. The District Center designation includes the major activity areas of the city, designed to serve as anchors to the city's commercial corridors and to accommodate major development activity. No General Plan amendment is required for the specific plan, and the MainPlace Specific Plan is the zoning for the property and defines the allowable uses within its boundaries. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -14- October 2021 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone The Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone consists of an original MEMU Overlay Zone and an expansion component. The original MEMU Overlay Zone is largely developed with commercial and office uses and comprises approximately 200 acres immediately east of the 1-5 and immediately west of SR-55. It is bounded by 1-5 on the west and south, Tustin Avenue on the east, and East Sixth Street on the north. The MEMU expansion area added 33.52 acres or approximately 48 parcels to the original MEMU Overlay Zone area. The additional project area extends west primarily along First Street and is generally bounded by the 1-5 to the east, Grand Avenue to the west, East Chestnut Avenue to the south, and Fourth Street to the north. The overall objectives of the MEMU Overlay Zone are to encourage a more active commercial and residential community, provide an expanded economic base, maximize property sales tax revenues, improve the jobs/housing balance within the city, and provide for a range of housing options identified in the 2014 housing element. Midtown Specific Plan The Midtown Specific Plan area is generally bounded by 17th Street to the north, Civic Center Drive to the south, North Ross Street to the west, and North Spurgeon Street to the east. The Midtown area is readily accessible from the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). Midtown is envisioned as an integrated district of civic, business, cultural, and retail activity with a small residential component. Transit Zoning Code Specific Development The City adopted a Transit Zoning Code to provide zoning for the integration of new infill development into existing neighborhoods; to allow for the reuse of existing structures; to provide for a range of housing options, including affordable housing; and to provide a transit -supportive, pedestrian -oriented development framework to support the addition of new transit infrastructure. The code encompasses an area in the central urban core of Santa Ana that comprises over 100 blocks and 450 acres. The area is west of 1-5 and bounded by First Street on the south, Flower Street on the west, Grand Avenue on the east, and Civic Center Drive on the north. General Plan Buildout Scenario In general, many areas currently designated for General Commercial and Professional Office will expand opportunities for residential development by a proposed change in General Plan land use designation to Urban Neighborhood or District Center. Industrial Flex will be introduced in each of the five focus areas and replace Industrial land use designations that currently exist to allow for cleaner industrial and commercial uses with live -work opportunities. Furthermore, state law allows a graduated density bonus for the inclusion of affordable housing units For an increasing amount of affordable units (by percentage), a project is allowed an increasing ability to exceed the permitted density (up to a cap of 35 percent). Recent updates to state housing law (Assembly Bill 1763, effective January 1, 2020), enables projects that are 100 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -15- October 2021 percent affordable (either 100 percent lower income or 80 percent lower and 20 percent limited moderate), to obtain a density bonus of 80 percent, or no limit if within one-half mile of a major transit stop. However, not every proposed project pursuant to the GPU would include affordable units, and not every project that includes affordable units would need a density bonus. Proposed projects pursuant to the GPU are not required to build at densities that exceed maximum limits; the law only requires that jurisdictions grant the density bonus if requested. The buildout methodology for the GPU was based on past development trends, current development trends, and a forecast market analysis. These trends accounted for any units approved (density bonus or otherwise), to determine the appropriate density and amount of development to assume. Additionally, the optimal density of affordable units is at or below the density levels assumed for forecasting buildout. Generally, projects beyond 50 to 70 units per acre require Type 1 construction (steel and concrete structure), which is much more expensive than Type V construction (wood structure). Accordingly, affordable projects are rarely greater than 70 units per acre except for very small parcels. The average densities used to calculate projected buildout at 2045 are 50 to 90 units per acre in the three most intense focus areas; 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, Grand Avenue/17th Street, and South Bristol Street focus areas. For the remaining two focus areas, a residential assumption at 30 units per acre was used over a broad area to account for development at or above the maximum density of 30 units per acre. The maximum is 20 units per acre for projects proposed exclusively residential in the South Main Focus Area. The maximum is 30 units per acre for a relatively small part of the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area. The City's buildout projections are therefore considered to include and account for the application of density bonus provisions of state law to future projects. Furthermore, the potential for development in specific plan and special zoning areas is based on the forecast buildout at the time of the respective zoning document's adoption, minus the amount of new development built between the adoption date and 2019. Growth outside of the focus areas and special planning areas is expected to be incremental and limited. Some growth was projected for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. Some growth was also projected for the commercial and retail area south of the West Santa Ana Boulevard focus area. Finally, some additional residential development is expected on a small portion (5 percent) of single-family and multifamily lots through the construction of second units. For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation. C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS Project development requires the following discretionary actions and approvals from the City: ■ Adoption of the Santa Ana General Plan update ■ Certification of PEIR Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -16- October 2021 ■ Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ■ Adoption of any ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms that implement the Santa Ana General Plan update D. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES The updated General Plan is based on a vision statement and core values established as part of an extensive, multiyear community outreach effort. The City has identified the following core values to guide the General Plan Update (GPU): ■ Health. The people of Santa Ana value a physical environment that encourages healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and a community that actively pursues policies and practices that improve the health of our residents. ■ Equity. Residents value taking all necessary steps to ensure equitable outcomes, expanding access to the tools and resources that residents need, and balancing competing interests in an open and democratic manner. ■ Sustainability. Santa Ana values land use decisions that benefit future generations, plans for the impacts of climate change, and incorporates sustainable design practices at all levels of the planning process. ■ Culture. The Santa Ana's community values efforts that celebrate our differences as a source of strength, preserve and build upon existing cultural resources, and nurture a citywide culture of empowered residents. ■ Education. Santa Ana values the creation of lifelong learners, the importance of opening up educational opportunities to all residents, and investing in educational programs that advance residents' economic well-being. These core values were used as the basis to define more specific project objectives to aid decision makers in their review of the GPU and associated environmental impacts. The objectives include: 1. Promote infill development while respecting and protecting established neighborhoods. 2. Optimize high density residential and mixed -use development that maximizes potential use of mass transit. 3. Provide locations for new housing development that maximizes affordable housing opportunities to achieve both City and regional housing goals. 4. Facilitate new development at intensities sufficient to generate community benefits and attract economic activity. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -17- October 2021 5. Provide housing and employment opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City's edge. g. Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike -friendly, and transit -oriented. 7. Develop opportunities for live/work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -18- October 2021 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Santa Ana CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. ■ The City of Santa Ana concluded that a PEIR should be prepared, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for a 30-day public review period from February 26, 2020, through March 27, 2020. The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on February 26, 2020. The notice was published in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation. Under CEQA, a lead agency may proceed directly with preparation of a PEIR without preparation of an Initial Study if it is clear that a PEIR will be required (State CEQA Guidelines § 15060[d]). The City of Santa Ana made such a determination for this project and did not prepare an Initial Study. ■ Completion of a scoping process, in which the public was invited by the City of Santa Ana to participate. The scoping meeting for the PEIR was held on March 5, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. at the Santa Ana Police Community Room at 60 Civic Center Plaza in Santa Ana. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP distributed on February 26, 2020. ■ Preparation of a Draft PEIR by the City of Santa Ana, which was made available for a 45- day public review period (August 3, 2020, through September 16, 2020) and extended to October 6, 2020. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft PEIR was sent to all persons, agencies, and organizations on the list interested persons, sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies, and published in the August 3, 2020, Orange County Register. The NOAwas posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office on August 3, 2020. Copies of the Draft PEIR were made available for public review at the City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter at 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20, Santa Ana, CA 92701, and the City of Santa Ana Public Library at 26 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The Draft EIR was also available for review and download on City website: https://www.santa- ana.org/general-plan. ■ The Final PEIR contained comments on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft PEIR, if any, and appended documents. The Final PEIR was released for a 10-day agency review period prior to certification of the Final PEIR. ■ At its November 91 2020, public hearing, the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final PEIR and continue work on the GPU to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana's environmental justice (EJ) communities. ■ The City performed an intensive, extended community outreach program conducted between January and May 2021 as described in Section 2.4 of the Updated Draft PEIR (Volume II of the Recirculated Final PEIR). ■ Pursuant to Draft PEIR comments, the Planning Commission public hearing, and an expanded EJ community outreach program, the City made the decision to prepare a Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -19- October 2021 Recirculated Draft PEIR to discuss and evaluate impacts related to environmental justice, to conclude that the recreation -related impacts of the proposed GPU would result in a significant impact, and to define a new project alternative to reduce recreational impacts. ■ The City recirculate the Draft PEIR chapters that had been revised and the NOAwas released for a 45-day public review period from August 6, 2021 through September 20, 2021. The NOA directed reviewers to only submit comments on the revised Draft PEIR chapters included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR since the comments in the Final PEIR adequately addressed comments received on portions of the Draft PEIR that had not been recirculated. ■ One September 13th, the City conducted a Planning Commission Study Session to discuss the Recirculated Draft PEIR. Verbal comments from the public, received during the Study Session were addressed in the Final Recirculated PEIR. ■ After considering the PEIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the City of Santa Ana hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the project will result in significant effects on the environment; however, the significant effects will be eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and the City has determined that remaining significant effects are acceptable under Section 15093. ■ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby adopted to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. The City of Santa Ana finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the project and shall be binding upon the City and affected parties. ■ The City of Santa Ana finds that the project is in the public interest and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare. ■ The City of Santa Ana hereby certifies the Final Recirculated PEIR in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. ■ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15095, staff is directed as follows: a) copy of the Final Recirculated PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be retained in the project files; b) copy of the Final Recirculated PEIR and CEQA Findings of Fact shall be provided to all CEQA "responsible" agencies. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -20- October 2021 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS Based on the public scoping process (including review of NOP responses and input at the public scoping meeting), in addition to analysis prepared for the Draft PEIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues (see Updated Draft PEIR, Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant). It was determined, therefore, that these potential environmental issues would be precluded from detailed discussion in the Draft PEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft PEIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft PEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The City does not have any significant agricultural resources. Additionally, Santa Ana has no land designated or zoned for agricultural use and does not have any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Santa Ana does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or zoned Timberland Production. (b) Wildfire: According to CAL FIRE, the nearest fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) in an SRA to the City of Santa Ana is a high FHSZ about 4.0 miles east along the western edge of Loma Ridge. The nearest FHSZ in an LRA is about 3.8 miles away at the southern tip of the Peters Canyon Regional Park. The city is not in or near SRAs or lands classified as very high FHSZs. Additionally, no area in the city is on the wildland-urban interface. All other topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental Checklist were determined to require further assessment in the Draft PEIR. B. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE PEIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project -specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with existing regulations, as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Updated Draft PEIR. (a) Aesthetics: Buildout under the GPU will be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana's existing skyline. Buildout under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -21- October 2021 highways. The GPU would also create new sources of light or glare in the project area, but adverse impacts would be minimized with compliance to building codes. (b) Biological Resources: Development pursuant to the GPU would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Additionally, the GPU would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waterways. The GPU would not conflict with an adopted NCCP/HCP as the City is not within a NCCP/HCP area and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (c) Cultural Resources: The likelihood that human remains may be discovered during clearing and grading activities is considered extremely low. In the unlikely event human remains are uncovered, impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with California and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (d) Energy: Implementation of proposed policies under the GPU, in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements, will ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the GPU would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Additionally, the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (e) Geology and Soils: The plan area's location and underlying geology make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction. No active surface faults are mapped and zoned under the AP Zoning Act in the plan area. Additionally, all structures that would be constructed in accordance with the GPU would be designed to meet or exceed current design standards as found in the latest CBC. Most of the plan area is within an area susceptible to liquefaction; however, all structures constructed under the GPU would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards as found in the CBC. There are no substantial hazards with respect to slope stability, as the plan area is mostly flat. Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result from development of the GPU. Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Future development in the plan area would require connection to the City's sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the installation of septic tanks. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -22- October 2021 (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Construction and operations under the GPU would involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; however, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority would be required throughout the duration of project construction. GPU buildout is expected to result in some increase in the number of hazardous waste generators; however, hazardous wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in conformance with existing regulations of the EPA, US Department of Transportation, CalRecycle, and other agencies. Use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in conformance with regulations would reduce both the likelihood of an accidental release and the potential consequences in the event of an accidental release. The plan area includes 555 sites on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Any development, redevelopment, or reuse on or next to any of these sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional to ensure that the project would not disturb hazardous materials on any of the hazardous materials sites or plumes of hazardous materials diffusing from one of the hazardous materials sites, and that any proposed development, redevelopment, or reuse would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Santa Ana is in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan. Projects approved under the proposed GPU would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. The buildout of the GPU would not result in substantial changes to the circulation patterns or emergency access routes, and would not block or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Buildout would not interfere with operation of the City's Emergency Operations Center and would not interfere with operations of emergency response agencies or with coordination and cooperation between such agencies. Santa Ana is not in a designated fire hazard zone, and implementation of the GPU will not expose structures and/or residences to wildland fire danger. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: Projects pursuant to the GPU would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the demand on groundwater use but would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Development pursuant to the GPU would increase the amount of pervious surfaces in the plan area, but could substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in some focus areas in a manner which would result in flooding off -site or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, development pursuant to the GPU would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation or impede or redirect flood flows. Development Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -23- October 2021 pursuant to the GPU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (i) Land Use Planning: Implementation of the GPU would not divide an established community. Additionally, the GPU would be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport. Implementation of the GPU would be consistent with the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments' RTP/SCS. Implementation of the GPU would also be consistent with the OCTA Congestion Management Plan. (j) Mineral Resources: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (k) Noise: The proximity of the plan area to an airport or airstrip would not result in exposure of future residents and/or workers to excessive airport -related noise. (1) Population and Housing: The proposed GPU would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist. Therefore, implementation of the GPU would not displace people and/or housing. (m) Public Services: The GPU would introduce new structures and allow for up to 22,361 new residents and workers in the OCFA and Santa Ana Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for fire protection facilities and personnel, as well as increasing the service needs for the Main Library and the Newhope Library Learning Center. The GPU would also generate additional students who would impact the school enrollment capacities of the Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Orange Unified School District. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval the project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection services, police protection, library services, or school services. (n) Transportation and Traffic: The GPU is consistent with adopted programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Additionally, GPU implementation would result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) in comparison to existing City conditions, and would achieve a VMT/SP at least 15 percent lower than the countywide VMT/SP. Finally, circulation improvements associated with future development that would be accommodated by the GPU would be designed to adequately address potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.), potential conflicting uses, and emergency access. (o) Utilities and Service Systems: Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. However, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a functioning and effective process in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure will support future developments under the Santa Ana GPU. Additionally, OCSD and OC Water District have adequate capacity to serve development pursuant to the GPU in addition to the providers existing commitments. Development Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -24- October 2021 pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. However, the City would have adequate capacity for the proposed increases in water flows across the city under implementation of the GPU and would be able to serve the additional dwelling units and commercial square footage proposed. Furthermore, GPU policies encourage the maintenance and upgrade of water infrastructure through impact fees from new development, and the exploration of other funding sources. Water supply would be adequate to meet development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed stormwater drainage facilities would be able to accommodate proposed development pursuant to the GPU. Existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate development pursuant to the GPU and comply with related solid waste regulations. Development pursuant to the GPU would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power and natural gas. However, the net increases in natural gas demands due to the GPU buildout are within the amounts that SoCalGas forecasts that it will supply to its customers, and buildout would not require SoCalGas to obtain increased natural gas supplies over its currently forecast supplies. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -25- October 2021 V. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the PEIR, and the effects of the project were considered. Because of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of relevant General Plan policies; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures, some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined —pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the project, the City has determined that either (1) even with the identification of project design features, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, or (2) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." This is referred to herein as "Finding 3." A. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary describes impacts of the proposed project that, without mitigation, would result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the PEIR, the impacts would be considered less than significant. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-6: Industrial land uses accommodated under the General Plan update could create other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Industrial land uses associated with the GPU may generate potentially significant odor impacts for a substantial number of people. Impacts from potential odors generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with the GPU are considered less than significant. Impacts associated with construction -generated odors are considered less than significant. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -26- October 2021 The Industrial and Industrial Flex land uses are not anticipated to produce odors, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized and facilities would comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, Impact 5.2-6 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to: • Wastewater treatment plants • Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities • Fiberglass manufacturing facilities • Painting/coating operations • Large -capacity coffee roasters • Food -processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project's site plan. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 2. Biological Resources Impact 5.3-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species. The inventory of existing conditions determined that no parcels with a proposed land use designation that allows for development (i.e., not an open space designation) currently has Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -27- October 2021 sensitive vegetation. All parcels currently have ruderal vegetation and little to no biological value. Therefore, there is no current indication that future development in accordance with the GPU would have significant unavoidable biological impacts. However, the programmatic analysis prepared for this GPU was not at the detailed, site -specific analysis required for a specific development project. Site -specific analyses could reveal biological resources not identified in the Biological and Natural Resources Report. Therefore, there is a potential for biological impacts associated with implementation of the GPU. Therefore, implementation of the GPU could result in a potentially significant impact. The letter received from CDFW states that the Santa Ana River and its tributaries historically supported federally endangered southern California steelhead. CDFW's letter requests that the Draft PEIR include an analysis of any proposed major stream crossings in the context of fish passage, and states that the analysis should include, but not be limited to, steelhead presence or historic presence, existing conditions including habitat and barrier assessments, any known projects to remove barriers or restore habitat that would affect or be affected by this project, and cumulative impacts to steelhead populations and/or habitat resulting from this project. The GPU does not propose any major stream crossings. If any future development project entails improvements for stream crossings (e.g. Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek), project -level CEQA compliance would require a biological resources report that would address potential impacts to endangered species, including the California steelhead. Impact 5.3-1 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site -specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -28- October 2021 Impact 5.3-4: Implementation of the General Plan Update could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species. The City of Santa Ana is largely urbanized, and migration corridors are generally limited to the Santa Ana River and the Santiago Creek. Development under the GPU would result in the further infill of the city and removal of vacant sites. The GPU would not change land use designations of parcels that encompass the Santa Ana River or the Santiago Creek. However, development under the GPU could further result in vegetation removal, intrusion by humans and pets, and increased noise and air pollutants, which could impact wildlife movement and nesting sites. Therefore, the buildout of the GPU could affect wildlife movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law. Impact 5.3-4 would be less than significant with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measures Refer to BIO-1 above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. 3. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-2: Development in accordance with the General Plan Update could impact archaeological resources. Development involving ground disturbance within the plan area has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Typically, surface -level and subsurface archaeological sites and deposits can be affected by ground -disturbing activities associated with most types of construction. Based on literature review and records searches, eight archaeological resources have been recorded within the plan area, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation. While most of the plan area has been developed over the course of the twentieth century, buried resources may remain in areas where developments such as parking lots, parks, or structures with shallow foundations have required only minimal ground disturbance. A review of historical and ethnographic maps indicates a moderate likelihood that intact subsurface archaeological resources would be encountered during redevelopment. Archaeological resources impacts are site specific, but more intensive development can result in cumulative impacts on a regional level and should be considered in addition to individual project Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -29- October 2021 impacts on individual sites. As determined by the respective lead agency on a project by project basis, Phase I Cultural Resources studies would be required before ground disturbances and demolition activities are permitted to occur. The study would identify resources on the affected project sites that are, or appear to be, eligible for listing on the National or California Register. Such studies would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 were developed to reduce potential individual and cumulative impacts associated with future development and redevelopment. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires an archaeological resources assessment be conducted for future development projects to identify any known archaeological resources and sensitivity of the site. Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-7 detail the next steps required should the archaeological resources assessment identify known resources or determine the site to have high or moderate resource sensitivity. Upon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7, individual and cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade —prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground -disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -30- October 2021 and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground -disturbing construction and pre -construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -31- October 2021 above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 4. Geology and Soils Impact 5.6-4: Future development that would be accommodated by the General Plan Update could imaact known and unknown aaleontoloaical resources. Paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable and therefore receive protection under the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Adoption of the GPU in itself will not directly affect paleontological resources. Long-term implementation of the GPU land use plan could allow development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb paleontological resources. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by the GPU could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Review and protection of paleontological resources are also afforded by CEQA for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the GPU, subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the GPU. Fossil localities have been found in the vicinity of the plan area, although not in the plan area itself. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 prescribe requirements for monitoring based on the sensitivity of sites for paleontological resources. Under GEO-1, areas that range from high to low sensitivity are required to prepare a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. With adherence to mitigation measures GEO-1 through GEO-3, Impact 5.6-4 would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having "high" paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities. GEO-2 Low -to -High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with "low -to -high" paleontological sensitivity, the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -32- October 2021 underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PER. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 5. Noise Impact 5.12-3: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the GPU may expose sensitive uses to excessive levels of groundborne vibration. Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction activity at projects within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor -building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for architectural damage (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). Construction details and equipment for future project -level developments under the GPU are not known at this time but may cause vibration impacts. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -33- October 2021 With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations - related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less -than -significant levels. No significant and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain. Operational Vibration Impacts. Commercial and industrial operations within the plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Such equipment -generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor -building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. In addition, future sensitive receptors could be placed within close proximity to existing railroad lines through buildout in the plan area. Because specific project -level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify future vibration levels at vibration -sensitive receptors that may be near existing and future vibration sources. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-2, N-3, and N-4, coupled with adherence to associated performance standards, Impact 5.12-3 would be reduced to less -than -significant levels. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential vibration impacts during construction below the pertinent thresholds, and Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 (operations - related vibration) would reduce potential vibration impacts from commercial/industrial uses and proposed uses near existing railroads and facilities to less -than -significant levels. No significant and unavoidable vibration impacts would remain. Mitigation Measures N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non -engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -34- October 2021 this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. N-3 New residential projects (or other noise -sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. N-4 During the project -level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. 6. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 5.17-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The Sacred Land File search yielded positive results, indicating that known tribal resources exist within the plan area. Further, a CHRIS records search at SCCIC indicates that 23 archaeological resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the plan area. Of these resources, eight archaeological resources were located within the plan area; these include four prehistoric sites with habitation debris and lithic scatters, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The plan area includes many locations that would have been favorable for prehistoric Native American occupation. While the city is urbanized and most of the plan area has been developed, buried resources may remain in areas of minimal ground disturbance, such as parks, parking lots, and structures with shallow foundations. Tribal cultural resources are site specific in nature. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -35- October 2021 Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Impact 5.17-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). Future development as a result of the implementation of the GPU could include grading in portions of the City with sensitivity to tribal cultural resources. Grading and construction activities that require more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources. Future development could potentially unearth previously unknown or unrecorded tribal cultural resources. Because the NAHC SLF search yielded positive results and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation identified sensitive areas within the city, the buildout of the GPU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources. Earthwork activities may occur with buildout under the GPU that could impact previously undisturbed tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7 in section A.3, above. Finding Finding 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -36- October 2021 B. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the GPU where mitigation measures were found to be either infeasible or would not lessen impacts to less than significant. The following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 1. Air Quality Impact 5.2-1: The additional population growth forecast for the General Plan Update and the associated emissions would not be consistent with the assumptions of the air aualitv manaaement clan. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-45 of the Updated Draft PEIR. The GPU would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under the GPU would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Buildout of the GPU would exceed current population estimates for the city, and therefore the emissions associated with the additional population are not included in the current regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, overall, the GPU would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 into future development projects for the operation phase would contribute to reduced criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the GPU. Additionally, goals and policies in the GPU would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes and implementation of transportation demand management strategies. However, due to the magnitude and scale of the land uses that would be developed, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce operation and construction impacts below South Coast AQMD thresholds. In addition, the population and employment assumptions of the AQMP would continue to be exceeded until the AQMP is revised and incorporates the projections of the GPU. Therefore, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -37- October 2021 projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site -specific development that require refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in for the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant -provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star —certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star —certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -38- October 2021 finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. However, the City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the General Plan Update could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold criteria. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-47 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Buildout of the GPU would occur over a period of approximately 25 years or longer. Construction activities associated with buildout of the GPU could generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD'S significance thresholds during this time and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction -related activities to the extent feasible. However, construction time frames and equipment for site -specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction -related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction -related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -39- October 2021 incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive -dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD's Rule 403, such as: ■ Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. ■ Apply water every four hours to active soil -disturbing activities. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super -Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD's website. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -40- October 2021 technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-3: Implementation of the General Plan Update would generate long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD's threshold criteria. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-48 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Buildout in accordance with the GPU would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD's regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, in addition to the goals and policies of the GPU, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants in the city. Further, compared to existing baseline year conditions, emissions of NOx, CO, and SOx are projected to decrease from current levels despite growth associated with the GPU. However, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of the overall land use development associated with the GPU. Contributing to the nonattainment status would also contribute to elevating health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants. It is speculative for this broad -based GPU to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment, since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions, or how many additional individuals in the air basin would suffer health effects. South Coast AQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the SoCAB, and at the present time it has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in the Friant Ranch case. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground -level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health -based standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the ambient air quality standards. However, because cumulative development within the city would exceed the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -41- October 2021 Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-2, above. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.2-4: Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-50 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Buildout of the GPU could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants JAC). Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent, project -level environmental review by the City of Santa Ana. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of the GPU would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. Though individual projects would achieve the project -level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of risk in the SoCAB. Therefore, the GPU's cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -42- October 2021 Mitigation Measures AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel - powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and shall include all applicable stationary and mobile/area source emissions generated by the proposed project at the project site. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on -site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -43- October 2021 Impact 5.2-5: Development and operation of land uses accommodated by the General Plan Update could generate emissions that exceed the localized significance thresholds and expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air Dollutants. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, starting on page 5.2-53 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project -related construction activities and large emitters of on -site operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD's Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the regional construction and operation emissions associated with buildout of the GPU and therefore also result in a reduction of localized construction- and operation -related criteria air pollutant emissions, to the extent feasible. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, Impact 5.2-5 would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would also be applicable in reducing construction- and operation -related LST impacts. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -44- October 2021 2. Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-1: Buildout consistent with the General Plan Update could impact an identified historic resource. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, starting on page 5.4-26 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Generally, potential impacts to historical resources resulting from future projects developed pursuant to the GPU would be mitigated by the City's fulfillment of its statutory responsibilities under CEQA. However, for certain development pursuant to the GPU, the City may determine that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided. The City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits. Though the possible demolition or alteration of a historical resource cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. With fulfillment of the CUL-1 and CUL-2, future development consistent with the GPU would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. However, if significant impacts cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources are documented consistent with Mitigation Measure CUL-3. The Historical Resources Technical Report determined that unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from future development under the GPU will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible but will still be significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Therefore, the development under the GPU would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -45- October 2021 rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character -defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character -defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary's Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorial ization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -46- October 2021 changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 5.7-1: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a decrease in GHG emissions in horizon year 2045 from existing baseline but may not meet the long-term GHG reduction goal under Executive Order S-03-05. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, starting on page 5.7-31 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the City is tracking and monitoring the City's GHG emissions in order to chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term, year 2050, GHG reduction goal set by Executive Order S-03-05. However, at this time, there is no plan past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology. Advancements in technology in the future could provide additional reductions and allow the state and City to meet the 2050 goal, but in the meantime, Impact 5.7-1 would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan's progress toward achieving the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following: Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -47- October 2021 • GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. • Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP: ■ Administration and Staffing ■ Finance and Budgeting ■ Timelines for Measure Implementation ■ Community Outreach and Education ■ Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management ■ Tracking Tools Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 4. Noise Impact 5.12-1: Construction activities associated with buildout of the plan area would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting on page 5.12-29 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction noise could result in a temporary Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -48- October 2021 substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program -level impact does not preclude the finding of less -than -significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Mitigation Measures N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best -available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor's representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -49- October 2021 unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line -of -sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.12-2: Buildout of the plan area would cause a substantial traffic noise increase on local roadways and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.12, Noise, starting on page 5.12-30 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential interior noise impacts to future noise -sensitive receptors below the thresholds. However, there are no feasible or practical mitigation measures available to reduce project -generated traffic noise to less than significant levels for existing Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -50- October 2021 residences along affected roadways. No individual measures and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce project -generated traffic noise to less than significant levels in all cases. Thus, traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. It should be noted that the identification of this program -level impact does not preclude the finding of less - than -significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level. Mitigation Measures Refer to Mitigation Measure N-2, above. Finding Finding 3. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the GPU that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Santa Ana hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. 5. Population and Housing Impact 5.13-1: The GPU would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, starting on page 5.13-12 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Full buildout of the GPU would result in a population of 431,629, and the city's 2045 population growth would be approximately 20 percent greater than the Orange County Council of Governments' 2045 projections. Furthermore, the city's housing units at buildout would be 115,053, which exceeds the Orange County Council of Governments' projection by 38 percent. There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -51- October 2021 Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the population and housing growth at buildout. Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -52- October 2021 6. Recreation Impact 5.15-1: The General Plan Update would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility could occur or be accelerated. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, starting on page 5.15-27 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Although required park fees for development could be sufficient to fund new parks and improvements, there is a lack of available land and lack of land designated as Open Space within the General Plan Update to develop new parks or expand existing facilities. The City of Santa Ana is essentially built. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure REC-1 to monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area would contribute to reducing impacts to existing public parks within a '/z radius of the focus area. Compliance with this mitigation measure, regulatory requirements, and implementation of proposed GPU policies and implementation actions would reduce the potential impact of the proposed GPU on existing park facilities. However, because of the existing park deficiencies and scale of development in park -deficient areas, the project's impact would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures REC-1 The City shall monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Fwy focus area. Development proposals for projects including 100 or more residential units shall be required to prepare a public park utilization study to evaluate the project's potential impacts on existing public parks within a one half (1/2) mile radius to the focus area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the new resident population to impact existing public parks within the radius. Each study shall also consider the cumulative development in the Dyer/55 Fwy and the potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius. If the study determines that the project, or it's incremental cumulative impacts would result in a significant impact (substantial physical deterioration or substantial acceleration of deterioration) to existing public parks, the project shall be required to mitigate this impact. Measures to mitigate the significant impact may include but are not limited to land dedication and fair -share contribution to acquire new or to enhance existing public parks within the radius. Mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -53- October 2021 Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Impact 5.15-2: Population increases resulting from project implementation would increase recreation demands that would require construction or expansion of recreation facilities that would have potential to result in physical impacts to the environment. Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, starting on page 5.15-29 of the Updated Draft PEIR. Population increases resulting from the implementation of the GPU would increase recreation demands and require construction or expansion of recreation facilities. Although construction and/or expansion of new parks and recreation facilities would be subject to GPU policies and implementation actions; regulatory requirements, and future, project specific environmental review under CEQA, it is still possible that development of such facilities could result in significant unavoidable impacts Mitigation Measures There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts to recreation at buildout. Finding Finding 3. The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less -than -significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the PEIR, as discussed in Section G of these Findings (Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines §§ 15091(a)(1), (3)). As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the GPU outweigh its significant effects on the environment. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -54- October 2021 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). As discussed above, the PEIR identified significant impacts in a number of categories. The following impacts could be mitigated below a level of significance: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, tribal cultural resources impacts. The following impacts cannot be mitigated below a level of significance: certain air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, population and housing, and recreation impacts. The PEIR analyzed four alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce some, if not all, of the impacts. A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING "Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[c]). Alternative Circulation Element— Roadway Classifications. The proposed circulation element in the GPU evolved over a long process and coordination with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). During this process, alternative packages of arterial roadway classifications were considered that involved roadways in OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The majority of reclassifications proposed were identified for bicycle facility safety improvements in the City's Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) Plan, prepared in 2016. Most of the reclassifications identified were for roadways where bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements would require roadway reconfiguration and a reduction in the number of existing or planned travel lanes. Many of the SMSA recommendations across the city have already been, or are in the process of being, implemented along arterial roadways without reducing the number of lanes. A cursory review of two optional roadway reclassification packages was conducted to determine whether these optional plans would have the potential to eliminate significant impacts of the proposed GPU and meet most the project objectives. It was determined that a detailed evaluation of this alternative was not needed to provide a reasonable range of EIR project alternatives. Transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant (VMT/SP falls below the significance threshold for the GPU without mitigation). Although these alternatives may have some potential to reduce VMT (by reducing the number of travel lanes for some roadways) and thereby also potentially reduce air quality, greenhouse gas, and traffic noise impacts, these alternatives would also result in more inconsistencies with the MPAH and result in more traffic congestion. Although traffic congestion is no longer a CEQA consideration, the GPU sets forth standards for level of service that will be considered by decision -makers. Moreover, the Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -55- October 2021 Reduced Density and RTP/SCS Consistency alternatives were determined to be meaningful alternatives to consider for the potential of reducing air quality, GHG, and traffic noise impacts. Reduced Traffic Noise Alternative. Since traffic noise was determined to be a significant, unavoidable impact of the proposed GPU, a project alternative designed to eliminate this significant impact was considered. The required reductions in traffic volumes (ADT) were determined along roadways where buildout of the GPU would result in significant noise increases. These estimates were compared to the surrounding land uses that would generate ADTs for those roadway segments. Traffic noise along these roadways would both exceed the noise standard and abut sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). Several segments would experience significant, unavoidable traffic noise impacts without the land use changes proposed under the GPU. Since significant traffic noise could not be avoided, further evaluation of this alternative was not deemed to be meaningful. B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Given the significant, unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed GPU, project alternatives with the potential to substantially reduce development were identified for further review. Significant GPU impacts to long-term air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, and recreation all directly relate to the level of development that would occur within the city. At the programmatic level of this GPU PEIR, site -specific information regarding potential significant historical impacts is not available, and therefore, an alternative could not be customized to reduce that impact. A reduced intensity alternative would also be expected to reduce the significant traffic noise impact (as discussed above). A reduced park demand alternative was also analyzed to address the significant and unavoidable impacts to recreation. The following development alternatives to the proposed GPU were chosen for further analysis. No Project / Current General Plan Alternative The evaluation of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. The No Project alternative is typically defined as the development scenario that would occur if the project as proposed is not adopted. For a General Plan, the No Project alternative is typically represented by the jurisdiction's existing General Plan, including land use plan, circulation master plan, and policies in each General Plan element. Therefore, this alternative assumes that the existing General Plan —with various adoption dates for different elements between 1982 and 2014—would remain in effect. This existing General Plan also reflects amendments, including new Specific Plans and special zoning areas that have been adopted through the Notice of Preparation for this GPU. Finding. The City Council rejects the No Project/Current General Plan Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -56- October 2021 opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 11 impact categories, reduced impacts to 5 environmental impacts, and increase impacts to 4 categories. Impacts would be similar for agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. This alternative would reduce impacts for aesthetics, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. Impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, and transportation would increase. This alternative does not mitigate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the GPU to a less than significant impact. It would also exceed the City's VMT threshold. Overall, impacts under this alternative would decrease in comparison to the proposed project. The No Project/Current General Plan alternative would not achieve many of the proposed project objectives. The existing land use plan does not provide the opportunities to provide housing and employment at the levels required to meet local and regional goals. Moreover, the No Project alternative would not provide numerous general policies as included in the GPU to achieve these goals and invigorate communities. The current General Plan, however, protects established neighborhoods and several Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas would provide for infill opportunities, protect established neighborhoods, and result in mixed -use villages and bike- and pedestrian -friendly communities. Reduced Intensity Alternative (Reduced capacity for the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas) Under the GPU, the only areas that include revisions to land use designations to accommodate new growth are within the five focus areas. The majority of remaining growth would occur within previously approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. A nominal amount of growth is assumed to occur in other areas of the city and would not require land use amendments. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would substantially reduce development capacity within two focus areas, 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol Street, which accommodate approximately 65 percent of the housing unit growth and 72 percent of the nonresidential use (by building square footage) of the growth projected for the combined focus areas under the GPU. For the focus areas, the forecast buildout is based on development at approximately 80 percent of the maximum allowed development for each respective land use designation. For this alternative, development of the 55 Freeway/Dyer and South Bristol focus areas would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the maximum allowed per the land use designations. This alternative would reduce housing units by a total of 5,383 and would reduce total building square footage by approximately 4.2 million square feet distributed between these two focus areas. This alternative would also reduce population by 19,825 and jobs by 9,184. Overall, this alternative would reduce the housing growth accommodated by the GPU land use changes by approximately 18 percent and reduce nonresidential building square footage by approximately 27 percent. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -57- October 2021 Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 7 impact categories, reduce impacts to 12 categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and services. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project. The Reduced Density Alternative reduces the level of development for two of the five focus areas (55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol Street) relative to the GPU. No other changes to the GPU are made for this alternative. It is assumed to include the same General Plan policies and would not modify the circulation element or related improvements. Therefore, this alternative would attain many of the project's objectives. It would not "optimize" high density housing and mass transit opportunities, and so was found not to attain objective No. 2. It would, however, achieve objectives Nos. 3 through 5, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With the reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol focus areas, it would not be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities, and may not be as economically feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed -use opportunities that are bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative (Reduced development for RTP/SCS population/housing consistency) This alternative was developed to evaluate an update to the General Plan that would be consistent with the population and housing projections used to develop the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) most recent Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)—Connect SoCal (adopted May 7, 2020). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The plan embodies a collective vision for the region's future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -58- October 2021 Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The proposed GPU would result in a significant population and housing impact because development under the GPU would substantially exceed the projections used in Connect SoCal. SCAG uses locally prepared population and housing projections to develop the regional plan. For the City of Santa Ana, those projections were provided by the Orange County Council of Governments, as prepared by the Center for Demographic Research. The population/housing figures reflected for Santa Ana in the regional plan for 2045 are: population, 360,100; total housing units, 80,100; and total jobs, 176,400. Projections for the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) use land use designations as approved in adopted general plans. The employment projections are similar for the GPU and RTP/SCS scenarios, but the RTP/SCS projections for population and housing units are substantially lower than GPU projections (18 percent and 27 percent lower, respectively). The RTP/SCS alternative, therefore, represents the least -development -intensive project alternative evaluated for the PEIR. ■ This alternative would substantially reduce the growth that would be accommodated within the focus areas under the GPU. New growth within the focus areas would total 6,380 housing units and approximately 3.7 million square feet of nonresidential uses, instead of a total additional 23,955 housing units and approximately 15.7 million square feet within the focus areas. This alternative distributes anticipated development through the focus areas and the approved Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas. For purposes of this alternative, it is assumed that a development cap would be used to limit total growth to the projections shown. ■ Subsequent updates of the regional plan would incorporate updated land use from the GPU and resolve the substantial discrepancy between the population and housing projections. Note also that the PEIR concludes that the GPU is consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS. This alternative has been defined to eliminate the significant impact associated with substantial population growth that is inconsistent with the regional plan, as well as reduce other significant growth -related (AQ/GHG, traffic noise) impacts associated with the GPU as proposed. Finding. The City Council rejects the 2020 RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Final Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would reduce impacts to 12 environmental impacts, result in similar impacts to 6 categories, and increase impacts to 1 category. It would reduce impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Impacts would be very similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. It would increase impacts to land use and planning. It would also increase impacts to transportation and Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -59- October 2021 potentially introduce a new significant impact. It is anticipated, however, that under this alternative, transportation could be mitigated to less than significant. Under the GPU, transportation impacts are less than significant without mitigation. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. The impact to population and housing would be reduced to less than significant. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed project. Due to the substantial reduction in housing opportunities citywide, this alternative is the least effective in achieving the project objectives of the GPU. By setting a development cap to limit housing and nonresidential development to the projections for the city in the 2020 RTP/SCS, this alternative reduces housing units by 31,515 compared to the GPU. It reduces housing development potential within the focus areas by 73 percent in comparison to the GPU, and reduces overall city future development by 27 percent. To achieve this reduction, the development cap would not only limit focus area development but would restrict the entitled housing in Specific Plans/Special Zoning areas (reducing total housing within these areas by almost 14,000 units). This alternative clearly would not optimize high density housing that maximizes mass transit use (objective No. 2) or provide urban -level intensities at the urban edges (objective No. 3). Moreover, it would not facilitate intensities that attract economic activities, particularly since it would not allow the maximum entitlement of approved Specific Plans and Special Zoning areas. It would achieve the remainder of the objectives, but to a lesser extent than the GPU. It would protect established neighborhoods, but not promote infill development as much as the GPU or other alternatives (objective No. 1). It would provide only limited opportunities for live -work and artist spaces and small-scale manufacturing (objective No. 7). Reduced Park Demand Alternative The City's Park standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents is not achieved under existing conditions and development allowed under the GPU would further exacerbate park and open space shortages. Without new parks, growth in any of the focus areas would exacerbate the current level of park deficiency either in or adjacent to disadvantaged communities. The areas proposed for substantial new residential development under the GPU were compared to the distribution of existing parks —location, size, and demand —to define the Reduced Park Demand Alternative. The Reduced Park Demand Alternative reduces residential growth by 11,225 units by eliminating or reducing residential land uses and intensity in the five focus areas. Overall, nonresidential square footage would be reduced by a total of approximately 2.8 million square feet within the focus areas compared to the proposed GPU. The nonresidential square footage would increase, however, in two of the focus areas: 17th Street/Grand Avenue by 697,000 square feet, and South Bristol by 739,000 square feet. New residential growth under this alternative would largely be in currently planned areas that are generally near a substantial number of existing park facilities. Some residential growth would be introduced into two focus areas at substantially lower intensities to reduce the potential impact on park facilities. Changes to the focus areas are as follows: ■ South Main Street. This focus area would remain as currently planned as a commercial corridor (GC) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) and District Center (DC) to reduce intensity Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -60- October 2021 so that there are no additional units constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a significant presence of EJ communities that are served by parks, but the existing parks are very small. ■ South Bristol Focus Area. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity by 2,273 units on sites that are more than a half mile from existing parks (generally west of Bristol and south of MacArthur Boulevard). ■ Grand Avenue/17th Street. Stay as currently planned as a lower density residential (LR-7) and commercial corridor (GC) to reduce intensity so that there are no additional units constructed beyond existing conditions, because much of the focus area is more than a half mile from existing parks. ■ West Santa Ana Boulevard. This focus area would remain as currently planned with lower density residential (LR-7) instead of Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity so that no additional units are constructed beyond existing conditions; there is a significant presence of EJ communities with areas that are farther than a half mile from existing parks in this focus area. ■ 55 Freeway/Dyer Road. District Center (DC) changed to Urban Neighborhood (UN) to reduce intensity by 5,381 units because a majority of the area is more than a half mile from existing parks in Santa Ana; the reduced intensity would also reduce potential impacts on adjacent parkland in Tustin. Finding. The City Council rejects the Reduced Park Demand Alternative on the basis of policy and economic factors as explained herein. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible this project alternative identified in the Recirculated PEIR. This alternative would result in similar impacts to 6 impact categories, reduced impacts to 12 categories, and increased impacts to 2 categories. Impacts would be similar for aesthetics, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire. This alternative would decrease impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and services. It would reduce the recreation impacts of the proposed GPU, as it was designed to do, and would improve the park acres/resident ratio compared to the proposed GPU. Recreation impacts to disadvantaged communities would also be reduced. Given the lack of available land for new parks, however, it would not eliminate the significant, unavoidable impact of the project. It would be expected to increase land use and planning impacts relative to the GPU. As with the GPU, impacts to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -61- October 2021 population and housing, and recreation would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall, impacts under this alternative would be decreased in comparison to the proposed project. This alternative would attain some of the project's objectives. It would promote infill development to a lesser extent than the GPU and would protect established neighborhoods (Objective 1), and would also develop opportunities of live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing (Objective 7). Given the substantial reduction in housing units, it was also concluded that it would not meet Objectives 2 and 3, to maximize high density residential development and mixed use proximate to potential mass transit use (Objective 2) and to maximize affordable housing and achieve City and regional housing goals (Objective 3). It would, however, achieve Objectives 4 through 6, but to a lesser extent than the proposed GPU. With new opportunities eliminated in three focus areas and the reduced opportunities in the 55 Freeway /Dyer Road and South Bristol focus areas, it would not be as effective in providing affordable housing opportunities and may not be as economically feasible in terms of funding community benefits. It would provide mixed - use opportunities that are bike and pedestrian friendly and provide opportunities for live -work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing. C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the "environmentally superior alternative" and, in cases where the "No Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the GPU, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. One alternative has been identified as "environmentally superior" to the GPU: ■ The RTP/SCS Consistency Alternative is concluded to be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed GPU. Both the Reduced Density and RTP/SCS alternatives reduce environmental impacts in comparison to the GPU, but the RTP/SCS reduces more impacts and eliminates a significant, unavoidable impact of the GPU. This alternative was designed to eliminate the significant population impact of the GPU, but it also reduces potential future development more than any of the other alternatives. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -62- October 2021 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Ana is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the PEIR for General Plan Update (project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, Statement of Overriding Considerations, which states: a. CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -63- October 2021 with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed project, none of which both meets the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed project, for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City of Santa Ana, as the Lead Agency for this project, and having reviewed the PEIR for the GPU, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project. B. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the project, and each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the project, in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project are as follows: 1. The community, land use, and public services elements of the project encourage healthy lifestyles, a planning process that ensures that health impacts are considered, and policies and practices that improve the health of residents. The policies also affirm and support a socially and economically diverse community with equitable distribution of resources. 2. Implementation of the GPU fulfills one of the key strategies identified in the Santa Ana Strategic Plan in the completion of a comprehensive update of the existing General Plan. 3. The project improves the jobs -housing balance; the ratio of 1.5 would give the city a more equal distribution of employment and housing. The population growth resulting directly from the proposed GPU would be offset by the level of employment opportunity provided to the city's residents and workers commuting into Santa Ana. 4. The project results in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled per service population (VMT/SP) and a reduction in related traffic congestion, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions compared with existing conditions because the GPU includes policies that promote the reduction of VMT. Policy 2.5 of the land use element encourages infill mixed -use development at all ranges of affordability to reduce VMT, and policy 4.5 aims to concentrate development along high -quality transit corridors. Policy 4.6 of the circulation element promotes reductions in automobile trips and VMT by encouraging transit use and nonmotorized transportation as alternatives to augmenting roadway capacity. 5. The project provides additional housing to support the regionally forecasted increase in economic activities and employment increases. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -64- October 2021 6. Implementation of the project would introduce policies and actions that address the importance of protecting the health of residents and the environment by improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and encouraging active transportation. 7. The project implements the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) land use policies related to population and housing by providing additional housing near employment centers. 8. The project facilitates the economic development of the city by promoting development that is mixed use, pedestrian friendly, transit oriented, and clustered around activity centers through new and infill residential development. Additionally, the proposed project would improve the city's jobs/housing balance by supporting development that provides housing and employment opportunities to enable people to live and work in Santa Ana. 9. Implementation of the project would coordinate air quality planning efforts to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards by considering the goals of the Climate Action Plan in all major decision on land use and public infrastructure investment and investing in low- to zero -emission vehicles. These policies also promote development that meets or exceeds standards for energy -efficient building design, and the consideration of sensitive of potential emission sources on sensitive uses. 10. The project promotes economic growth and diversity within the city. The economic prosperity element of the GPU includes policies related to improving Santa Ana's economy and its role within the region. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -65- October 2021 Vill. RESOLUTION REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF THE PEIR The City of Santa Ana finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Recirculated PEIR in evaluating the proposed project, that the Final Recirculated PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final Recirculated PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City of Santa Ana declares that no new significant information, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Recirculated Draft PEIR that would require further recirculation. The City of Santa Ana certifies the PEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusions: Findings: The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the PEIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section V of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality (project -related and cumulative), cultural resources (project - related), greenhouse gas emissions (project -related), noise (project -related), population and housing (project -related), recreation (project -related). Conclusions 1. Except the impacts (stated above) relating to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas, noise, population and housing, and recreation all significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the PEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. Other alternatives to the proposed project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed project. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed project. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -66- October 2021 IX. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -67- October 2021 X. RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Santa Ana Planning Division Counter. The custodian for these records is the City of Santa Ana. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The record of proceedings for the City's decision on the project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: 1. The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project. 2. The Draft PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 3. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Draft PEIR and the 20-day extension to the comment period. 4. The Final PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, including comments received on the Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices. 5. The Recirculated Draft PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 6. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Recirculated Draft PEIR. 7. The Final Recirculated PEIR for the Santa Ana General Plan Update, including comments received on the Recirculated Draft PEIR, responses to those comments, and technical appendices. 8. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the project. 9. All findings, resolutions, and ordinances adopted by the City in connection with the General Plan Update, and all documents cited or referred to therein. 10. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the Santa Ana General Plan Update. 11. All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the General Plan Update PEIR up through project approval. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 12. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -68- October 2021 13. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The following location is where the record may be reviewed: City of Santa Ana, Planning Division Counter 20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92701 This page intentionally left blank. Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -69- October 2021 EXHIBIT D October 2021 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Santa Ana General Plan Update City of Santa Ana Prepared for: City of Santa Ana Contact: Melanie G. McCann, Principal Planner 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 mmccann@santa-ana.org Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................1 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION........................................................... 6 List of Tables Table Page Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics.............................................................................. 3 Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary.............................................................................................................. 5 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements...................................................................... 7 October 2021 Page i GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. Page PlaceWl'orks 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Final Recirculted Program Environmental Impact Report. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Santa Ana monitoring requirements. Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision subsection (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. (b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. (c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead October 2021 Page 1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. The MMRP will serve to document compliance with adopted/certified mitigation measures that are formulated to minimize impacts associated with future development that would be accommodated by the Santa Ana General Plan. 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The GPU is the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan Update is to comprehensively update the 1982 plan to reflect current conditions, establish a shared vision of the community's aspirations, and create the policy direction to guide Santa Ana's long-term planning and growth over the next two decades. The General Plan Update will include the City's future development goals and will provide policy statements to achieve those goals. Implementation actions related to each goal or policy will be included as a separate Implementation Plan to ensure successful monitoring of progress as a community. Furthermore, the GPU will focus on five areas in Santa Ana that are better suited for future development or overall improvement. These focus areas are: ■ South Main Street ■ Grand Avenue/ 17th Street ■ West Santa Ana Boulevard ■ 55 Freeway/Dyer Road ■ South Bristol Street General Plan Update The updated General Plan is organized into three sections: Services and Infrastructure (1), Natural Environment (II), and Built Environment (III). The proposed GPU addresses the seven topics required by state law as well as five optional topics. State law gives jurisdictions the discretion to incorporate optional topics and to address any of these topics in a single element or across multiple elements. The 12 proposed elements of the GPU will replace 16 existing elements. The GPU will incorporate the current 2014-2021 Housing Element, and no substantive changes are anticipated. The topic of housing will be addressed as a separate effort in late 2021 in accordance with State law. The topic of environmental justice will be incorporated throughout the GPU, with goals and policies incorporated into multiple elements. The 12 elements of the proposed GPU are: Page 2 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mandatory Topics ■ Land Use Element ■ Circulation Element ■ Housing Element ■ Open Space Element ■ Conservation Element ■ Safety Element ■ Noise Element Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Optional Topics ■ Public Services Element ■ Urban Design Element ■ Community Element ■ Economic Prosperity Element ■ Historic Preservation Element The GPU will guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the plan area by designating land uses in the proposed land use map and through implementation of updated goals and policies of the GPU. Table 1-1 outlines the proposed land use designations under the GPU. Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics Land Use Designation Acres % of Total Grand Avenue/17th Street 171.5 - District Center 23.7 13.8 General Commercial 19.9 11.6 Industrial/Flex 7.1 4.1 Open Space 1.1 0.6 Urban Neighborhood 119.7 69.8 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 354.5 - District Center 158.0 44.6 General Commercial 68.0 19.2 Industrial/Flex 127.4 35.9 Open Space 1.1 0.3 South Bristol Street 199.9 - District Center 108.3 54.2 Open Space 6.0 3.0 Urban Neighborhood 85.7 42.9 South Main Street 312.2 - Industrial/Flex 29.0 9.3 Institutional 19.2 6.1 Low Density Residential 162.3 52.0 October 2021 Pne 3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1 Proposed Land Use Designations and Statistics Land Use Designation Acres % of Total Urban Neighborhood 101.7 32.6 West Santa Ana Boulevard 481.6 - Corridor Residential 10.0 2.1 General Commercial 21.5 4.5 Industrial/Flex 87.9 18.3 Institutional 45.5 9.4 Low Density Residential 108.1 22.4 Low -Medium Density Residential 6.8 1.4 Medium Density Residential 27.0 5.6 Open Space 133.6 27.7 Professional and Administrative Office 6.2 1.3 Urban Neighborhood 35.0 7.3 Balance of City 11,598.8 - District Center 124.2 1.1 General Commercial 424.2 3.7 Industrial 2,159.6 18.6 Institutional 886.7 7.6 Low Density Residential 6,173.3 53.2 Low -Medium Density Residential 429.0 3.7 Medium Density Residential 335.3 2.9 One Broadway Plaza District Center 4.1 0.0 Open Space 793.8 6.8 Professional and Administrative Office 260.4 2.2 Urban Neighborhood 4.1 0.0 Not Specified 4.1 0.0 Total 13,118.5 100% Source: Figures aggregated and projected by PlaceWorks, 2020. The full buildout scenario is analyzed in comparison to existing conditions. Table 1-2 details buildout statistics. Similarly, the PEIR provides conclusions regarding impact significance for this scenario for both the proposed GPU and project alternatives. Page 4 PlaceVorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary PLANNING AREA BUILDOUT Housing Units Bldg. Sq. Ft.' Jobs FOCUS AREAS 23,955 15,684,285 35,044 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 9,952 6,142,283 13,302 Grand Avenue/17th Street 2,283 703,894 1,622 South Bristol Street 5,492 5,082,641 11,192 South Main Street 2,308 946,662 2,151 West Santa Ana Boulevard 3,920 2,808,805 6,777 SPECIFIC PLAN / SPECIAL ZONING 20,524 16,958,445 39,702 Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone2 1,260 976,935 2,567 Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan 135 143,139 282 Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan 4,622 1,967,982 1,578 MainPlace Specific Plan 1,900 2,426,923 5,380 Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone 5,551 4,685,947 12,258 Midtown Specific Plan 607 1,818,253 4,615 Transit Zoning Code 6,449 4,939,266 13,022 ALL OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY3 70,574 40,325,086 95,670 CITYWIDE TOTAL 115,053 72,967,816 170,416 Source: City of Santa Ana 2020. 1 Only includes nonresidential building square footage. 2 The figures shown on the row for the Adaptive Reuse Overlay represents parcels that are exclusively in the Adaptive Reuse Overlay boundary. Figures for parcels that are within the boundaries of both the Adaptive Reuse Overlay Zone and a specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area boundary are accounted for in the respective specific plan, other special zoning, or focus area. 3 The City has included an assumption for growth on a small portion (5 percent) of residential parcels through the construction of second units, which is distributed throughout the city and is not concentrated in a subset of neighborhoods. Additional growth includes known projects in the pipeline and an increase of 10 percent in building square footage and employment for the professional office surrounding the Orange County Global Medical Center and along Broadway north of the Midtown Specific Plan. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Santa Ana is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southwest of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. The city is bordered by the city of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west. In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a 24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The city also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within its sphere of influence (SOI). The city and its SOI are defined and referred to herein as the plan area. October 2021 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ORGANIZATION CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Draft PEIR and Recirculated Draft PEIR, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring and reporting that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the MMRP. To effectively track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared (see Table 1-3). Page 6 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible I Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor 5.2 AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for Prior to Project Applicant City of Santa City of Santa development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental discretionary and Construction Ana Building Ana Building Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall approval Contractor Safety Division Safety prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project Division construction -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction -related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction -related emissions could include, but are not limited to: • Require fugitive -dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD's Rule 403, such as: • Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Apply water every four hours to active soil -disturbing activities. • Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. • Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer's standards. • Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. October 2021 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • Limit on -site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area. • Use Super -Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super -Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD's website. AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for Prior to the Property Owner/ City of Santa City of Santa development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental discretionary Developer Ana Building Ana Building Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall approval Safety Division Safety prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project Division operation phase -related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation -related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD's adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following: • For site -specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug- in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. Page 8 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • Site -specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. • Provide preferential parking spaces for low -emitting, fuel -efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code. • Applicant -provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star —certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star —certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check. • Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate. October 2021 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project Prior to future Property Owner/ City of Santa City of Santa applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that discretionary Developer Ana Building Ana Building 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day project approval Safety Division Safety or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel -powered transport Division refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District and shall include all applicable stationary and mobile/area source emissions generated by the proposed project at the project site. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered (i.e., 10 in one million cancer risk and 1 hazard index), the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on -site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan. AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is Prior to future Property Owner/ City of Santa City of Santa determined that a development project has the potential to emit discretionary Developer Ana Building Ana Building nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan project approval Safety Division Safety shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Division Santa Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to: • Wastewater treatment plants Page 10 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities • Fiberglass manufacturing facilities Painting/coating operations • Large -capacity coffee roasters • Food -processing facilities The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project's site plan. 5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb Concurrent with Project Applicant/ City of Santa City of Santa vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified submittal of site Developer Ana Building Ana Building biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site- development plans Safety Division Safety Division specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified and prior to the biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a issuance of biological resource assessment for the project, including an grading permits assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Prior to issuance Project City of Santa City of Santa Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources of grading permits Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or Developer Safety Division Safety historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Division October 2021 Page 11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated. CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Secretary of Prior to any Property Owner City of Santa City of Santa the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be disturbance of a or Project Ana Building Ana Building used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects historical resource, Applicant/ Safety Division Safety involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a as determined by Developer Division historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not the intensive -level impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards historical shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect evaluation of a meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification property Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character -defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character -defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary's Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Page 12 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorial ization. If the City Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical grading permits, Developer Safety Division Safety resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and for any Division and may also require additional public education efforts and/or subsequent permit memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or involving alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially excavation to impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation increased depth of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (NABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect. October 2021 Page 13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade— issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground -disturbing grading permits Developer Safety Division Safety activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Division Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and Prior to any ground Project City of Santa City of Santa impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Developer Safety Division Safety Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to Division any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). Page 14 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building resources, a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor activities Developer Safety Division Safety approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native Division American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground -disturbing construction and pre - construction activities in areas of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards. This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. October 2021 Page 15 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure activities Developer Safety Division Safety CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall Division be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously During ground Project City of Santa City of Santa undisturbed areas mapped as having "high" paleontological sensitivity disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time Developer Safety Division Safety basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units Division during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities.. Page 96 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor GEO-2 Low -to -High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building mapped with "low -to -high" paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), grading permits Developer Safety Division Safety the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to Division confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or During ground Project City of Santa City of Santa geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified Developer Safety Division Safety paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the Division point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils. 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Every five years City of Santa City of Santa City of Santa every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan's progress Ana Building Ana Building Ana Building toward achieving the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target Safety Division in Safety Division Safety and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified coordination with Division level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG Project emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 Applicant/ for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG Developer emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following: October 2021 Page 17 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor • GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. • Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05. • Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP: • Administration and Staffing • Finance and Budgeting ■ Timelines for Measure Implementation ■ Community Outreach and Education ■ Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management ■ Tracking Tools Furthermore, the following measures will be considered when the City updates the Climate Action Plan: • Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations • Measure to increase carbon sinks • Standards for electric vehicle parking • Standards for construction projects 5.12 NOISE MEM N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for Prior to issuance Project City of Santa City of Santa construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction of demolition, Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and/or Developer and Safety Division Safety grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa building permits Architect Division Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best -available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re -design, Page 18 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise - sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency. • At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City's and contractor's authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor's representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. • Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise -producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the October 2021 Page 19 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line -of -sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building resources, 100 feet of non -engineered timber and masonry buildings building permits Developer Safety Division Safety (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete Division and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. N-3 New residential projects (or other noise -sensitive uses) located within Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal building permits Developer Safety Division Safety Transit Administration (FTA)-approved methodologies. Division Page 20 PlaceWlorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor N-4 During the project -level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa process for industrial developments under the General Plan Update or issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near building permits Developer and Safety Division Safety sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to Acoustical Division assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the Engineer operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents. 5.15 RECREATION REC-1 The City shall monitor new residential development within the Dyer/55 Prior to the Project City of Santa City of Santa Fwy focus area. Development proposals for projects including 100 or issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building more residential units shall be required to prepare a public park occupancy permits Developer Safety Division Safety utilization study to evaluate the project's potential impacts on existing Division public parks within a one half (1/2) mile radius to the focus area. The evaluation shall include the population increase due to the project and the potential for the new resident population to impact existing public parks within the radius. Each study shall also consider the cumulative development in the Dyer/55 Fwy and the potential for a cumulative impact on existing public parks within the radius. If the study determines that the project, or it's incremental cumulative impacts would result in a significant impact (substantial physical deterioration or substantial acceleration of deterioration) to existing public parks, the project shall be required to mitigate this impact. Measures to mitigate the significant impact may include but are not limited to land dedication and fair -share contribution to acquire new or to enhance existing public parks within the radius. Mitigation shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 5.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, Prior to the Project City of Santa I City of Santa I trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade— issuance of Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground -disturbing grading permits Developer Safety Division October 2021 Page 21 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Safety Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist Division that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present. CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and Prior to any ground Project City of Santa City of Santa impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation disturbing activities Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Developer Safety Division Safety Secretary of the Interior's Standards to determine significance prior to Division any ground -disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation's "Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" (OHP 1990) and "Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs" (OHP 1991). CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground -disturbing activities Developer Safety Division Safety construction and pre -construction activities in areas with previously I I I I Division Page 22 PlaceWorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Document Completion Date Responsible Location Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify Prior to Project City of Santa City of Santa potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has construction Applicant/ Ana Building Ana Building moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure activities Developer Safety Division Safety CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary's Standards shall Division be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The pre -construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on -call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any October 2021 Page 23 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Document Location Completion Date Implementing Responsible (Monitoring Responsible Project Mitigation Mitigation Measure Timing Party Monitoring Party Record) Monitoring Party Monitor collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. Page 24 PlaceVorks GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page intentionally left blank. October 2021 Page 25 EXHIBIT 3 All materials for Exhibit 3 may be accessed at: https://www.santa-ana.org/general- plan/draft-documents and are also on file and available at the City's Planning and Building Agency. Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework, Maps, Tables, Implementation, and Text November 29, 2021 golden city A SXAR0.11 YISFON FO0. BANSA-A The following represents minor revisions and corrections made to the August 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan, in addition to the clarification of November 1 and November 8, 2021. The updated content is shown by element, with policy and implementation actions displayed with tracked changes. Updates to maps, tables, time frames, and other edits are either described, shown with tracked changes, or displayed as final content with a brief description of the nature of the changes. 141e1d:111VA41 a&IaL1kI - Page 5-09, POLICY 5-4.2 FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 77 Do not approve buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces, unless, feund consistent with the California Public Utilities Code Section 21240, such building or structure is determined by FAA to pose "no hazard" to air aviation.by the Ai F P e Ft La d 6- se C-e;, FR,;ss+o„TAL IJQ. Additionally, under this Policy,^ efdane +" � P@Ft :7:7Fequ applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface will be required to file a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC4-ef LAND USE ELEMENT Figure LU-4, Density and Intensity Map, page LU-16 Remove outlines to identify GC areas east of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Focus Area and the small parcels with the West Santa Ana Blvd Focus Area to the standard GC of 0.5 FAR. Table LU-3, Density and Intensity Standards, page LU-17 - Add the following to the end of Footnote 1. "FAR calculations exclude structured parking square footage." - Add the following to the end of Footnote 4. "Westview Housing project (SD-97) designated as UN-40 allow density up to 42.5 Du/acre." Figure LU-15, Land Use Map, West Santa Ana Boulevard, page LU-48 Remove the outline and label from the GC areas, with exception of the block of GC located northwest of First Street and Townsend. Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 29, 2021 Table LU-6, Land Use Designations, West Santa Ana Boulevard, page LU-49 Remove the "GC-1.5" reference and replace with standard "GC" reference (0.5 FAR and 35 feet maximum height) and GC-1 for the block of GC northwest of First Street and Townsend (also 35 feet maximum height). Figure LU-18, Land Use Map, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road, page LU-56 - Add the "GC" label to the area east of the 55 freeway. Table LU-7, Land Use Designations, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road, page LU-56 - Change the 2-story maximum height reference to 35 feet for the CG-1.5 area. - Add a row for General Commercial with 0.5 FAR and 35' maximum height. Figure LU-1, Page LU-12: - Change land use designation on map for the Legacy Sunflower project to UN-50. Table LU-3, Page LU-17: Change Note 4 as follows: Exception Areas. The Lake Center Development, near Lake Center Drive and Susan Street, defined by Specific Development Plan Number 58 (SD-58), allows intensities up to 0.72 FAR. The property located at 4040 W. Carnegie Ave. and approved by GPA No. 2000-08 allows intensities up to 0.47 FAR. Select properties designated UN-30 may also permit Hybrid Court building types with higher residential densities per the Transit Zoning Code. The 4th and Mortimer project in SD-84 designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. The Sunflower Legacy project in SD-94 designated UN-50 allows densities up - 63 units per acre. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. Page LU 22, 23, 24 add Footnote #4. "Refer to page LU-14 for Mixed Use Intensity/Density clarification." Table LU-4, Page LU-30; Table LU-5, Page LU-40; Table LU-6, Page LU-49; Table LU-7, Page LU-56; Table LU-8, Page LU-62: - Revise the note as follows: Coo Table I I I_o Net r- f... All F c n.e.a Desig atiens f.,.- ad-d-itie—RaI .IULebIveLe: :j Table LU-9 on pane LU-68 for additional criteria for all Focus Area desienations. Table LU-9, Page LU-68: Revise all references to "Focus Area Interim Development Guidelines" to "Focus Area Interim Development Standards" to ensure that readers understand the City's intent to use the direction provided in Appendix A as zoning regulations until such time that the City's Municipal Code is updated. Land Use Maps: - Figure LU-1, Page LU-12; Figure LU-4, Page LU-17; and Figure LU-18, Page LU-56: Remove "GC" designation from Hotel Terrace Drive. - Figure LU-1, Page LU-12 and Figure LU-4, Page LU-16 as follows: 2 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 29, 2021 Revise the following land use designations approved through prior general Plan amendments: Northeast block of Mountain View and First Street to match existing persuant GPA No. 2020-04. Hapham Project on Edinger Avenue GPA No. 2017-03; Sunflower Legacy Project GPA No. 2019-01; Westview Housing on 17t" Street GPA No. 2020- 07. The land use designations for the following properties identified by assessor parcel number (APN) have been corrected to correspond with the existing land use designations (APN 003- 161-10, 144-551-52, 016-045-19, 398-441-06, 411-131-38). No land use changes are proposed for these sites. • The land use designations for the following properties identified by assessor parcel number (APN) have been corrected to correspond with existing right-of-ways and will not be assigned a land use designation (APNs: 411-131-11, 008-131-33, 430-222-18, 430-222-19, 430-222-15, 430-222-17, 430-222-20, 430-222-22, 430-222-23, 398-082-33, 398-221-22, 398-221-23, 430-222-10, & 430-222-11). • The land use designations for the following properties identified by assessor parcel number have been revised to coincide with surrounding land uses or City park project (APNs: 396- 261-26, 396-261-38, 396-261-37, 396-261-38, 011-251-17, 011-251-18, 011-251-19, & 011- 251-20) OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Figure OS-2, Page OS-09 Figure OS-2: - Change the legend to read "Joint -use P-ar* School". Table OS-3 Open Space Element Implementation, Page OS 16: OS 1.7: Public parkland requirements for residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for I -Larger rResidential pRrojects to require public parkland within City limits and a 10-minute walking distance of the new residential projects. OS 1.7a: Open Space and Park land Incentives. Allow developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for the provision of park land for public use. Establish a process and program to incentivize developers to provide additional on -site and/or publicly accessible open space through the OFdonation between tw ^ 'clentoal PFGj ^Ets (of any sizeto create public park land and open space, such as expl^� ^^ ^ ^ housing density bonus eptiens Research and collaborate with residents, developers, and community organizations to design and implement an open space density bonus to incentivize the creation of additional on -site open space in exchange for more density in the project. Agency/Timeframe: PBA/PRCSA 2022 INTRODUCTION - Add an Introduction section for the General Plan to provide a brief overview of the GP's organization, a summary of the update process, and a glossary. 3 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework and Maps golden city beyond A SHARED VISION FOR SANFA ANA November 8, 2021 The following represents minor revisions and corrections made to the August 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan. The updated content is shown by element, with draft policy and implementation items displayed with tracked changed. Updates to maps, tables, time frames for implementation actions, and other text edits are either described or displayed as final content with a brief description of the nature of the changes. LAND USE ELEMENT Table LU-5, Land Use Designations, Grand Avenue and 171" Street Table LU-6, Land Use Designations, West Santa Ana Boulevard Table LU-7, Land Use Designations, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road - Revise General Commercial Land Use designation references in the Focus Areas such that the maximum height is changed from two (2) stories to 35 feet, consistent with height limit in General Commercial land use designations citywide. Figure LU-18, Land Use Map, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road - Revise proposed General Commercial (GC) land use designation area east of the 55 Freeway, from 1.5 FAR back to existing 0.5 FAR (consistent with the existing land uses and zoning district allowances). Figure LU-19, Artist Rendering, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road - Note #2, General Commercial "The area surrounding .... allowing for existing hotel uses on both sides of the 55 Freeway to remain and promoting new commercial development. MOBILITY ELEMENT Figure M-2, Master Plan of Bikeways - Revise to show the following: 1. Newhope Street (New Class II) a. between McFadden Avenue to 1st Street b. between Hazard Avenue to Westminster Avenue 2. McFadden Avenue between West City Limit to Harbor Boulevard (New Class II) 3. Fairview Street (New Class 1) 1 Clarification to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 8, 2021 a. Between Civic Center Drive and Trask Avenue b. Between Warner Avenue and Sunflower Avenue 4. Susan Street between Alton Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard (New Class 11) 5. Santa Ana River (New Class 1) a. between Edinger Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard b. between Memory Lane and SR-22 6. PE ROW between Westminster Avenue and Raitt Street (New Class 1) 7. OCFCD (New Class 1) a. between Westminster Avenue and West City Limit b. between 15t Street and Monta Vista Avenue c. between Occidental Street and Alton Avenue d. between Edinger Avenue and Sunflower Avenue 8. LOSSAN Corridor between 6t" Street and Chestnut Avenue (New Class 1) 9. Greenville Street between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue (New Class 11) 10. Willits Street between Orange County District Flood Channel and Raitt Street (Class IV to Class II) 11. Walnut Avenue (Class 11 to Class 111) a. between 15t street and Raitt Street b. between west of Pacific Avenue and Pacific Avenue 12. Bristol Street between Edinger Avenue and Washington Avenue (New Class IV) 13. Civic Center Drive between Bristol Street and Broadway (New Class II) 14. Chestnut Avenue between Cypress Avenue and Grand Avenue (New Class 11) 15. Cypress Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and 1st Street (New Class II) 16. Standard Avenue between 1st Street and 4t" Street (New Class II) 17. 5t" Street French Street to Lacy Street (New Class 11) 18. Lacy Street between 5t" Street and 6t" Street (New Class III) 19. Brown Street between Lacy Street and Garfield Street (New Class IV) 20. Garfield Street between Brown Street and 6t" Street (New Class IV) 21. 15t Street between Grand Avenue and East City Limit (New Class IV) 22. Cabrillo Park Drive between 1" Street and 4t" Street (New Class 11) 23. Grand Avenue (New Class II) a. between 215Y Street and Fairhaven Avenue b. 1" Street and 4t" Street 24. Fairhaven Avenue Dayna Street to East City Limit (New Class IV) 25. Sunflower Avenue Bristol Street to Main Street (New Class 11) 26. Warner Avenue Pullman Street to Red Hill Avenue (New Class II) Implementation Action M-4.4 - Reevaluate the Residential Permit Parking Program to ensure it complies with state law and best practices. 2 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework, Maps, Tables, Implementation, and Text November 1, 2021 golden city The following represents minor revisions and corrections made to the August 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan. The updated content is shown by element, with policy and implementation actions displayed with tracked changes. Updates to maps, tables, time frames, and other edits are either described, shown with tracked changes, or displayed as final content with a brief description of the nature of the changes. VISION STATEMENT [each element] A SHARED VISION Santa Ana is a city that promotes the health and wellness of all residents, with a civic culture that actively embraces the power of diversity. Our city invests in resources that create economic opportunities for the next generation, and it is a community that celebrates our past while working together to create a sustainable future. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Implementation Action 1.19 - Climate Action Plan. Review and update the City's Climate Action Plan. Time frame: 2023 [updated to reflect Council Climate Action Resolution on 917121] Table CN-1, CalEnviroScreen Scores for Environmental Justice Communities The table was updated with the final CES 4.0 results, which were finalized and released in October 2021. Based on the final composite scores, two census tracts were added that met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074005 and 6059074106) and one census tract was removed that no longer met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074004). The individual composite, pollution, and population percentile scores, as well as the individual pollution and population variables were also updated based on the finalized CES 4.0 results. Figure CN-3, Environmental Justice Communities - The map updated with the final CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 results, which were finalized and released in October 2021. Based on the final composite scores, two census tracts were added that met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074005 and 6059074106) and one census tract was removed that no longer met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074004). Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - POLICY OS-1.2 PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM* Provide and support a comprehensive and integrated network of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open space that is diverse, with a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities. - POLICY OS-1.3 PARK STANDARD* Establish and maintain public parks, open space, and recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Attain a minimum of two acres of land per 1,000 persons residing in the City of Santa Ana. - POLICY OS 1.4 PARK DISTRIBUTION* Ensure the City residents have access to public or private parks, recreation facilities, or trails in the City of Santa Ana, within 10-minute walking and biking distance of home. Prioritize provision, programs, and partnerships in park deficient an environmental justice areas. [Policy OS-1.4 was left out of the August 2021 draft due to an editing error and showed up as a duplicate of Policy OS-1.5.] Implementation Action 1.7 Public parkland requirements for residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within City limits and a 10- minute walking distance of the new residential projects. Allow developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for the provision of park land for public use. Establish a process and program to incentivize publicly accessible open space through the coordination between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create public park land and open space, such as exploring housing density bonus options . Implementation Action 1.16 [new action] - Acquisitions to meet park standard. Using the Park Master Plan as guidance, identify and acquire property within the City for park and open space use which will focus on bringing the park and recreation system to 2 acres of land per 1,000 residents with a plan to keep pace with future urban growth. Agency/Time Frame: PRCSA 2022 & ongoing Table OS-1, Open Space Resources - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to recategorize Roosevelt Community Center from a Neighborhood Park to as a joint -use facility and a part of the Roosevelt Community Center Park. - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to remove Griset Park and Neal Machander Tennis Center as both facilities are school facilities without joint -use agreements. - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to rename "Willard Intermediate Park" to "Willard Intermediate Playlot", with the acreage figure update to reflect more accurate boundaries. 2 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 - The table (listing) was updated rename "Willard Intermediate Park" to "Willard Intermediate School". - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to remove Spurgeon Intermediate and Rosita Elementary schools as joint -use agreements are no longer active. - The table was updated to correct the number of linear miles of City bikeways/trails from 22.7 to 15.74 miles. - The table was updated to incorporate the numerical references found on Figure OS-1, Open Space Resources Figure OS-1, Open Space Resources - The map was corrected to be consistent with Figure M-2, Master Plan of Bikeways. The correction involved the removal of the Class I Bikeway/Trail segment west of Broadway. The map was corrected to reflect changes in Table OS-1, to correct the categorization of Standard and McFadden as a public park, to remove the sole private park, and to update the legend accordingly. Figure OS-2, Walking Distance to Park Facilities The map was updated to reflect the correct darker blue colorization for the Joint -use Park symbology, to reflect changes in Table OS-1, and to reflect a more accurate listing of joint -use facilities. SAFETY ELEMENT Table of Contents - The reference date for the City's draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was updated from March 2021 to August 2021 to reflect the latest version. Preamble, page S 01 - The following text was added to specifically incorporate the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference into the General Plan. "The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City of Santa Ana planning area was developed in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and followed FEMA's 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The LHMP incorporates a process where hazards are identified and profiled, the people and facilities at risk are analyzed, and mitigation actions are developed to reduce or eliminate hazard risk. The implementation of these mitigation actions, which include both short and long-term strategies, involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities." W_1►1WRII441a &Ia►III 1 - POLICY LU-1.6 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 3 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 Encourage residential mixed -use development within the city's District Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and adjacent to high -quality transit. - POLICY LU-2.8 CITY IMAGE Encourage land uses, development projects, and public art installations that promote the city's image as a cultural, governmental, and business -friendly regional center Implementation Action 3.25 - LU IA 3.25 Engage EJ communities. Work with community serving organizations, neighborhood leaders, and residents to form an Ad Hoc Committee to develop ongoing EJ Community Engagement programs for existing and new disadvantaged EJ communities, including multilingual communication protocols. Host biannual or quarterly Roundtable meetings with local stakeholders to guide and evaluate implementation of environmental justice policies. Table LU-3, Density and Intensity Standards, page LU 17 - The table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. The table was revised to provide more specific maximum intensity and height standards for the MainPlace (DC-2.1) and City Place (DC-2.54) development areas that align with the approved zoning. Footnote 2, Typical Maximum Height, was revised as follows to add additional language to ensure that readers understand the City's intent to govern height through general plan policy standards and zoning regulations: Typical Maximum Height. The typical maximum heights identify the upper limit of a typical building height within each density and intensity category, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed in this table. The allowable height of development on any parcel is subject to the zoning standards (in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code) and, if within a focus area, the focus area maximum height (starting on page LU-26 of this element), both of which may further restrict the allowable height. Some properties within a height district, as defined in Section 41-602 of the municipal code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights above the typical maximum height depicted here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standard where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown in this table. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay - subzone Village Center = 6 story max, subzone Active Urban = no limit; Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - subzone Transit Node = 10 story max, subzone Neighborhood Transitional = 3 story max, subzone Corridor = 4 story max; Transit Zoning Code - subzone Corridor = 3 story max. - Revised Footnote 4, Exception Areas, to add the following language: The 4th and Mortimer project designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. 4 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, page LU 12 - The map was revised to reflect the Change from DC-5 to UN -SO for portions of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Urban Center. Figure LU-4, Density and Intensity Map, page LU 16 - The map was revised to change: o From DC-3 to DC 2.1 for the MainPlace SP o From DC-3 to DC 2.54 for the City Place development o From DC-3 to DC-5 for portions of the Harbor Corridor SP designated as Transit Node o From DC-5 to UN-50 for portions of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Urban Center o From UN-20 to UN-40 for portions of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Corridor o From UN-50 to UN -30 for portion of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Urban Neighborhood 2 Table of Contents - The title of Appendix A was revised from "Focus Area Interim Development Guidelines" to "Focus Area Interim Development Standards" to ensure that readers understand the City's intent to use the direction provided in Appendix A as zoning regulations until such time that the City's Municipal Code is updated. Caption to image before preamble - Sana Ana County Seat and Downtown. Introduction, page LU 02 The city has also expanded beyond its historic role as the civic center and County Seat of Orange County and is emerging as the county's cultural and economic hub. Density and Intensity Standards, page LU 14 - First paragraph under previous header of "DENSITY AND INTENSITY IN SANTA ANA" moved to be first paragraph at the top of the page. - Nonresidential Intensity Floor area ratio (FAR) is a measurement used to identify nonresidential land use intensity. The FAR is the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot compared to the total area of that lot. Higher FARs generally indicate larger buildings and/or more stories, but Figure LU-3, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), illustrates that the size and height of the building can vary a great deal within the same FAR. Note, FAR is also a measure used in mixed -use area buildout as described below. 5 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 - Mixed Use Density and Intensity To encourage a dynamic mixture of residential, office, clean industrial, and commercial uses in mixed -use areas (Industrial/Flex, Urban Neighborhood, One Broadway Plaza District Center, and District Center'), when both residential and nonresidential uses are planned the density... [added Footnote 1]: 1. District Centers that are part of a special planning area, as shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to special development standards may be regulated by FAR alone. - Rounding [new text] When calculating the square footage allowed for a proposed development, no upward rounding is permitted in determining the final permitted intensity. Likewise, no upward rounding is permitted in calculating the allowable number of residential units. For example, in a calculation producing a yield of 12.7 units for a given development site, 12 units are permitted. Footnote 1, Typical Maximum Height, pages LU 18, 19, and 21 1. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed on this page. The allowable height of development on any parcel is also subject to the zoning standards (Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further specify allowable height. Some properties within a height district, per Section 41-602 of the Municipal Code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights in excess of the typical maximum height shown here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page. Industrial / Flex category revisions, page LU 22 - Maximum Intensity in table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. Typical Maximum Height Footnote 1, page LU 22 1. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed on this page. The allowable height of development on any parcel is also subject to the zoning standards (Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further specify allowable height. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page. UN category revisions, page LU 23 - Maximum Intensity in table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. Typical Maximum Height Footnote 2, page LU 23 M Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 2. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed on this page. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - UN-30 in subzone Neighborhood Transitional = 3 story max, UN-50 in subzone Corridor = 4 story max; Transit Zoning Code - UN-40 in subzone Corridor = 3 story max. UN-30 Footnote 3, page LU 23 3. UN-30 designations in the South Bristol Street Focus Area have a maximum height of 3 stories (see Table LU-8 on page LU-62). Where the maximum height allowed in a focus area conflicts with the height shown on this page, the focus area maximum height shall prevail. The 4th and Mortimer project designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. DC category revisions, page LU 24 DC 2.1 and DC 2.54 categories added table with description of DC land uses, with maximum intensity and height standards to align with the approved zoning. - Maximum Intensity in table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. Footnote 2, page LU 24 2. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be differentthan listed on this page. The allowable height of development on any parcel is also subject to the zoning standards (Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further specify allowable height. Some properties within a height district, per Section 41-602 of the Municipal Code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights in excess of the typical maximum height shown here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay - DC-3 in subzone Village Center= 6 story max, DC-3 in subzone Active Urban = no limit; Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - DC-5 in subzone Transit Node =10 story max. Footnote 4, page LU 24 [new text] 4. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. 7 ABOUT THE MAP. This map displays the City's long-term plan for a comprehensive bicycle network, with a hierarchy of facilities that provide varying levels of design, signage, and separation from vehicles. The City intends to provide a safe and efficient system that reduces the reliance on the automobiles and facilitates an increase in bicycling by choice. Table M-2 describes each bicycle classification. Class I Path Class III Bike Route / Boulevard Class II Bike Lane Class IV Cycle Track ^,,I - CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Source: City of Santa Ana (2020) Date Published: 11/8/2021 FIGURE M-2 MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS TABLE CN-1. CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES Census Low Percentile Score & Quartile Rank Variables in the Upper Quartile Income Composite Pollution Population Pollution Population Tract Neighborhood(s) 6059074003 Delhi No •• 56 AQ DPM ITD I CS LB GWIHZIL 6059074300 Delhi, Madison Park Yes 73 AQ I S II I HZ LB I ED I HB i SW 6059074200 Delhi, Madison Park, Yes 71 AQ I GW I L I HZ ED I LI I POV Memorial Park Sunwood Central, 6059074005 Rosewood Baker, South Yes 65 AQ I L ED I LI Coast 6059074108 Centennial Park Yes ' • 66 AQ I L I CS I HZ LB I ED 6059074106 n/a Yes ' • ft4 AQ I CS I GW I HZ LB I ED 6059074109 Valley Adams Yes 65 AQ I L I HZ ED I HB 6059089004 Riverview West Yes AQ I DPM I L EDI LI I POV I HB 6059089001 Riverview West Yes 70 AQ ED I LI I POV I HB 6059089105 Santa Anita Yes 65 AQ I L I TD ED I LI POV I HB 6059074403 Cornerstone Village, Yes 57 AQ I TD I CS I HZ EDI LI I POV I HB Lyon St 6059074406 Lyon St, Saddleback AQ I DPM I TD I CS EDI LI I POV I HB View Yes Yes I SW L LB 6059074602 Madison Park, Pacific AQI CS I HZI L EDI LII POV I HB Park 6059074502 Cedar Evergreen, Yes AQ I CS I GW I HZ EDI LI I POV I HB Madison Park L French Court, French AQ I DPM I TD I CS 6059074405 Park, Lacy, Logan, Yes I SW I L ED LI POV HB Pacific Park Downtown, French Park, AQ I DPM I CS I HZ 6059075002 Heninger Park, Lacy, Yes I SW I L LB I ED LI I POV Pacific Park, Willard Rankings Quartile 2 = Moderate Quartile 3 = Poor • Variable in the CES 4.0 model: Pollution Exposure Environmental Effects Sensitive Population Socioeconomic Factors AQ = Air Quality (incl. CS = Toxic Cleanup Sites LB = Low Birth Weight LI = Linguistic Isolation Ozone, PM2.5, Toxic Releases) GW: Groundwater Threats POV = Poverty DPM- Diesel Particulate Matter HZ = Hazardous Waste HB = Housing Burden TD = Traffic Density SW = Solid Waste Sites/Facilities ED = Educational Attainment L = Lead UE = Unemployment Note: Indicators not ranked in upper quartile: air quality (ozone); air quality (PM2.5); drinking water contaminants; pesticide use; impaired water bodies; asthma; cardiovascular disease; unemployment. Low income status consistent with Assembly Bill 1550 and mapping by the California Air Resources Board. ^,I - CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN TABLE CN-1. CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES 6059074901 Flower Park, Heninger Yes AQ I CS I HZ I L EDP LI I POV I UE Park, Pico Lowell 6059075201 Artesia Pillar Yes AQ I HZ L LBIEDILIIPOV � UE HB 6059075202 Artesia Pilar Yes AQ I CS I HZ I L ED I LI UE I HB 6059074801 Artesia Pilar, Central City Yes AQ I HZ I L ED I LI I POV 6059075004 French Court, Santa Ana Yes AQ DPM I TD L ED I LI I POV I HB Triangle 6059074805 Bella Vista Yes 63 AQ ED LI POV HB Flower Park, Washington 6059075100 Square, Willard, Floral Yes 64 AQ I CS I HZ I L ED I LI Park, West Floral Park 6059074802 Casa Bonita, Artesia Pilar Yes 58 AQ I CS I HZ I L ED I LI I POV Rankings uartile 1 =Good Quartile 2 = Moderate Quartile 3 = Poor Quartile ruartile I = Good Variable in the CES 4.0 model: Pollution Exposure Environmental Effects Sensitive Population Socioeconomic Factors AQ = Air Quality (incl. CS = Toxic Cleanup Sites LB = Low Birth Weight LI = Linguistic Isolation Ozone, PM2.5, Toxic Releases) GW: Groundwater Threats POV = Poverty DPM- Diesel Particulate Matter HZ = Hazardous Waste HB = Housing Burden TD = Traffic Density SW = Solid Waste Sites/Facilities ED = Educational Attainment L = Lead UE = Unemployment Note: Indicators not ranked in upper quartile: air quality (ozone); air quality (PM2.5); drinking water contaminants; pesticide use; impaired water bodies; asthma; cardiovascular disease; unemployment. Low income status consistent with Assembly Bill 1550 and mapping by the California Air Resources Board. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN M10"a.... ABOUT THE MAP. This map shows the boundaries of Santa Ana's environmental justice communities based on data from CalEPA's CalEnviroScreen tool. The boundaries represent the areas where the City's policies will emphasize and prioritize improving existing environmental conditions, expanding access to public facilities and resources, and augmenting opportunities for civic engagement. _ Environmental Justice Communities FIGURE CN-3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Date Published: 11/1/2021 Environmental Justice Community: The City uses a mapping tool from CaIEPA called CalEnviroScreen (CES) to identify the mostvulnerable and disadvantaged areas in Santa Ana. The CES tool measures 21 indicators for every census tract in California related to people's exposure to pollution and quality of life. The results for each census tract are combined and measured against every other census tract, producing a composite score that ranks census tracts from the least impacted to the most impacted. Those ranked in the top 25 percent —shown with values between 15 and 100 percent —are considered disadvantaged or environmental justice communities. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN J!pg,,"I TABLE 05-1. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Park Name COMMUNITY 1. Carl Thornton Park Acres 32.70 Park Name 3. Jerome Park Acres 19.27 Park Name 5. Santiago Park Acres 34.57 2. Centennial Regional Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 6. Adams Park 65.26 145.86 5.68 4. Memorial Park 14. Edna Park 16.30 3.56 -- 22. Portola Park -- 9.07 7. Angels Community Park 1.60 15. El Salvador Park 8.91 23. Riverview Park 8.33 8. Birch Park 2.37 16. Fisher Park 2.58 24. Rosita Park 8.68 9. Bomo Koral Park 10.40 17. Heritage Park 6.44 25. Sandpointe Park 7.73 10. Cabrillo Park 7.60 18. Lillie King Park 10.40 26. Santa Anita Park 5.05 11. Cabrillo Tennis Center 3.61 19. Mabury Park 5.46 27. Windsor Park 10.81 12. Cesar Chavez Campesino Park 6.48 20. Madison Park 6.04 -- -- 13. Delhi Park SMALL PARKS 28. 17th Street Triangle 9.94 11.84 0.70 21. Morrison Park 34. Garfield Fitness Park 5.12 0.10 -- 40. Raitt and Myrtle -- 1.09 29. Chepa's Park 0.41 35. Maple Occidental Exercise Park 0.96 41. Saddleback View Park 0.92 30. Colonel William W. Eldridge Park 1.20 36. Mariposa Park 0.43 42. Sarah May Downie Herb Garden 0.13 31. Fairview Triangle 0.74 37. McFadden Triangle Park 0.77 43. Segerstrom Triangle Park 1.33 32. French Park 0.21 38. Memory Lane Park 0.56 44. Standard and McFadden Park 0.66 33. Friendship Park SPECIALTY PARKS 46. Civic Center Plaza 0.10 24.78 4.89 39. Pacific Electric Park 48. Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park 1.41 18.75 45. Willard Intermediate Playlot -- 0.12 -- 47. Plaza Calle Cuatro • •• 50. Garfield Community Center 0.20 0.39 49. Sasscer Park 0.94 53. Madison Elementary School 0.03 56. Willard Intermediate School -- 4.85 51. Godinez Fundamental High School 18.58 54. Monte Vista Elementary School 2.40 -- -- 52. James Monroe Elementary School OTHER OPEN SPACE 57. River View Golf Course 2.91 282.77 81.78 55. Roosevelt Community Center Park 2.62 59. Fairhaven Memorial Cemetery 66.83 -- 61. St. John's Lutheran Cemetery -- 4.23 58. Willowick Golf Course 102.11 City Bikeways/Trails - 15.74 miles 60. Santa Ana Cemetery 27.82 Santa Ana River Trail - 3.70 miles -- -- TOTAL• OTHER ••TOTAL Notes: The numbering corresponds to the labels on Figure OS-1, Open Space Resources. The list of parks and acreage figures are accurate as of October 2021. All figures are subject to rounding. ^,I - CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN ABOUT THE MAP. This map shows the number, type, and distribution of open space areas in Santa Ana, with the majority representing parks and trails owned and operated by the City. The City also maintains joint -use agreements with schools to expand public parks and recreation resources. Golf course and cemetery areas provide a more limited form of recreation or open space. See Table OS-1, Open Space Resources, for a listing of parks and open space resources with numbering that is consistent with the labels on this figure. Open Space Type _ Community Park _ Neighborhood Park _ Small Park _ Specialty Park _ Joint -use School Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published:11/22/2021 Golf Course Class 1 Bikeway/Trail (Existing & Planned) Cemetery FIGURE OS-1 OPEN SPACE RESOURCES CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 1� .1..• ABOUT THE MAP. This map shows the walking distance from publicly accessible parks. This map can help identify neighborhoods that may be underserved or have limited access to parks and recreation facilities. The City seeks to ensure an equitable distribution of access to these facilities for all Santa Ana residents. GARDEN GROVE I! FOUNTAIN VALLEY 0\ 1Mi Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published: 11/29/2021 Park Type Walking Distance From Existing or Proposed Park _ Community Park Specialty Park 1/4 Mile _ Neighborhood Park Joint -use School 1/2 Mile _ Small Park Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Current or Future Residential Area more than 1/2 Mile (Existing & Planned) Walking Distance from an Existing or Planned Park Facility FIGURE OS-2 WALKING DISTANCE TO PARK FACILITIES CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 1� .1..• About the Map. Figure LU-1 shows the fundamental pattern of land use by displaying the pattern and distribution of land use designations across the entire city, down to the parcel level. GARDEN GROVE Garden Grove Blvd . ■ I. d. F� �Tr--ask Ave ---� j ■ r � Westminster Ave ��, ��`y,,I- P M - i Hazard /A, r (.A v 0 3 z FOUNTAIN VALLEY Slater Ave Talbert Ave = I � _i Segerstrom Ave ORANGE La Veta Ave - I '1101Falirrhavenit9ve I , San@a C.I,ara Ave ME . K MI" , Alton Ave W-0 MacArthur Blvd.w' •�� �11E. inni , I ) �10 55 L v a •• Edinger Ave P �a a TUSTIN 1 • ed�r •.9ir d��a Y IRVINE COSTA MESA \ \ Miles 0 0.5 1 General Plan Land Use Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published: 11/30/2021 LR-7, Low Density Residential INS, Institutional FLEX, Industrial/Flex LMR-11, Low -Medium Density Residential OS, Open Space UN, Urban Neighborhood _ MR-15, Medium Density Residential PAO, Professional and Administrative Office OBPDC, One Broadway Plaza District Center _ CR-30, Corridor Residential GC, General Commercial DC, District Center IND, Industrial FIGURE LU-1 LAND USE MAP �i �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN About the Map. Figure LU-4 combined with Table LU-3 describe the general plan standards for development intensity and density and show where they apply. GARDEN GROVE Garden Grove Blvd FOUNTAIN VALLEY General Plan Land Use LR-7, Low Density Residential LMR-11, Low -Medium Density Residential _ MR-15, Medium Density Residential _ CR-30, Corridor Residential INS, Institutional _ OS, Open Space _ PAO, Professional and Administrative Office _ GC, General Commercial IND, Industrial Miles 0 0.5 1 Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published:11/30/2021 _ FLEX, Industrial/Flex _ UN, Urban Neighborhood _ OBPDC, One Broadway Plaza District Center _ DC, District Center FIGURE LU-4 DENSITY AND INTENSITY MAP �i �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN TABLE LU-3. DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Low Density Residential (LR-7) 7 du/ac 2 storieSZ _ Low -Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) 11 du/ac 3 storieSZ - Medium Density Residential (MR-15) 15 du/ac 3 storieSZ _ Corridor Residential (CR-30) 30 du/ac 3 storieSZ - Institutional (INS) n/a n/a - Open Space (OS) n/a n/a Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) 0.5 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories' PAO-1 Professional and Administrative Office -Medium (PAO-1) 1.0 FAR 35 feet or 3 storieS2,3 PAO-1.5 Professional and Administrative Office -Medium High (PAO-1.5) 1.5 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories' PAO 2 Professional and Administrative Office -High (PAO-2) 2.0 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories2,3 _ General Commercial (GC) 0.5 35 feet' General Commercial -Medium (GC-1) 1.0 FAR 35 feet2,3 ® General Commercial -Medium High (GC-1.5) 1.5 FAR 35 feet2,3 Industrial (IND) 0.45 FAR 35 feet' Industrial/Flex- Low (FLEX-1.5) 1.5 FAR and/or 30 du/ac 3 storieSZ FLEX- Industrial/Flex- Medium (FLEX-3) 3.0 FAR 10 storieSZ UN-20 Urban Neighborhood -Low (UN-20) 1.0 FAR and/or 20 du/ac 3 storieSZ UN-30 Urban Neighborhood -Medium Low (UN-30) 1.5 FAR and/or 30 du/ac4 4 stories2,3 UN-40 Urban Neighborhood -Medium (UN-40) 1.5 FAR and/or 40 du/ac4 5 storieSZ UN-50 Urban Neighborhood -Medium High (UN-50) 1.5 FAR and/or 50 du/ac4 6 storieSZ - One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) 2.9 FAR 37 storieSZ - District Center -Low (DC-1) 1.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 6 storieSZ - District Center -Medium Low (DC-1.5) 1.5 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 storieSZ - District Center -Medium (DC-2) 2.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 storieS2,3 - District Center -Medium (DC-2.1) 2.1 FAR 20 stories - District Center -Medium (DC-2.54) 2.54 FAR 5 stories - District Center -Medium High (DC-3) 3.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 storieSZ - District Center -High (DC-5) 5.0 FAR and/or 125 du/ac4 25 storieS2,3 Notes: 1. Maximum Density/Intensity. The maximum density/intensity identifies the upper limit of density and intensity allowed within each category. All development is also subject to the zoning standards (in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further restrict the allowable density or intensity. Zoning standards shall not exceed the maximum density/intensity standards herein unless listed as an exception area in the notes below. FAR calculations exclude structured parking square footage. 2. Typical Maximum Height. The typical maximum heights identify the upper limit of a typical building height within each density and intensity category, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed in this table. The allowable height of development on any parcel is subject to the zoning standards (in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code) and, if within a focus area, the focus area maximum height (starting on page LU-26 of this element), both of which may further restrict the allowable height. Some properties within a height district, as defined in Section 41-602 of the municipal code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights above the typical maximum height depicted here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standard where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown in this table. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay - subzone Village Center = 6 story max, subzone Active Urban = no limit; Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - subzone Transit Node = 10 story max, subzone Neighborhood Transitional = 3 story max, subzone Corridor= 4 story max; Transit Zoning Code - subzone Corridor = 3 story max. 3. Maximum Heights in Focus Areas. Properties inside focus areas with PAO-1, PAO-2, GC-1, GC-1.5, UN-30, DC-2, and DC-5 designations may have a lower maximum height than shown here (see Focus Areas starting on page LU-26 for the maximum heights allowed in each focus area). Where the maximum height allowed in a focus area is lower than the typical maximum height shown in this table, the focus area maximum height shall prevail. 4. Exception Areas. The Lake Center Development, near Lake Center Drive and Susan Street, defined by Specific Development Plan Number 58 (SD-58), allows intensities up to 0.72 FAR. The property located at 4040 W. Carnegie Ave. and approved by GPA No. 2000-08 allows intensities up to 0.47 FAR. Select properties designated UN-30 may also permit Hybrid Court building types with higher residential densities per the Transit Zoning Code. The 4th and Mortimer project in SD-84 designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. The Sunflower Legacy project in SD-94 designated UN-50 allows densities up to 63 units per acre. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. The Westview Housing project (SD-97) designated as UN-40 allows density up to 42.5 du/acre. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Ii .1..• FIGURE LU-1 1 LAND USE MAP GRAND AVENUE AND 17TH STREET w V) Q JNTRY RD GROVLMUiv i -')I w w w Q RD a a z o z z � O O U > a CLARA o AVE Q z O jJ BUFFALO AVE z z AVALON AVE t F CATALINA AVE 21ST ST Q ~ w 20TH ST n � 19TH ST II `2 2 SHINGTON AVE TABLE LU-5. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RIO GRAND AVENUE AND 17TH STREET Transit -oriented urban - District Center 2.0 FAR or 6 village with a wide range -Medium 90 du/ac stories and mix of residential, live -work, commercial, and employment -generating uses Urban Neighborhood 1.0 FAR or 3 Medium -high density urban 20 du/ac stories neighborhoods with a mix -Low of attached single- and multifamily housing; mixed - Urban Neighborhood 1.5 FAR or 4 -Medium -Medium Low du/ac stories use residential with ground- g floor retail, services, and 1.5FAR or 5 Urban restaurants; cultural uses; N-40 Neighborhood 40 du/ac stories public and open s aces p p -Medium F Office/industrial flex spaces, Industrial/Flex ® 1.5 FAR 3 small-scale R&D, clean -Low stories General 35 Shopping, restaurants, Commercial 1.0 FAR feet entertainment, service -Medium commercial Notes: 17TH The focus area also includes a nominal amount of land used by railroad operations and mapped with the = Open Space land use designation. See Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, for additional notes. LU aY 2 Q g o 14TH ST o J z m WELLINGTON ALI p N n U H Sl 4TH ST FRUIT ST D C) m z M m O > a FIGURE LU-15 LAND USE MAP WEST SANTA ANA BOULEVARD SUNSWEPT AVE MpRNINGSOE AVE w d w SILVER DR J I � 0 � w � z Q � W � HAZARD AVE 0 o w w J L.LJ J c� co > 0 `L------------ m J z _ p v~i W Y J z = U w Q Q n z � N D Q (_ �r r r WE 1q9 TABLE LU-6. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WEST SANTA ANA BOULEVARD UN-20 �• _FLEX-1.5 .'\ __ I I------- _r'GC-1 Low Density 7 du/ac 2 stories Low-rise single-family neighborhoods Residential Low -Medium - Density 11 du/ac 2 stories Single-family homes, duplexes, small -lot subdivisions, and mobile -home parks Residential - Medium A mix of low- and medium -rise neighborhoods with single and multifamily housing, Density 15 du/ac 3 stories Residential including small lot subdivisions, townhomes, live/work units - Corridor Medium density urban housing, such as attached townhomes and apartments, Residential 30 du/ac 3 stories along corridors or adjacent to areas designated General Commercial, Urban Neighborhood, or District Center Urban 1.0 FAR or UN 20 Neighborhood 20 du/ac 3 stories -Low Medium density urban neighborhoods with a mix of attached single and multifamily housing; mixed -use residential with ground -floor retail, services, and restaurants; LnUrban 1.5 FAR or cultural uses; and public and open spaces Neighborhood 30 du/ac 4 stories Medium Low �� �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 1q9 TABLE LU-6. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WEST SANTA ANA BOULEVARD UN-20 �• _FLEX-1.5 .'\ __ I I------- _r'GC-1 Low Density 7 du/ac 2 stories Low-rise single-family neighborhoods Residential Low -Medium - Density 11 du/ac 2 stories Single-family homes, duplexes, small -lot subdivisions, and mobile -home parks Residential - Medium A mix of low- and medium -rise neighborhoods with single and multifamily housing, Density 15 du/ac 3 stories Residential including small lot subdivisions, townhomes, live/work units - Corridor Medium density urban housing, such as attached townhomes and apartments, Residential 30 du/ac 3 stories along corridors or adjacent to areas designated General Commercial, Urban Neighborhood, or District Center Urban 1.0 FAR or UN 20 Neighborhood 20 du/ac 3 stories -Low Medium density urban neighborhoods with a mix of attached single and multifamily housing; mixed -use residential with ground -floor retail, services, and restaurants; LnUrban 1.5 FAR or cultural uses; and public and open spaces Neighborhood 30 du/ac 4 stories Medium Low �� �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 17TH ST - - ----- - i- i— z "' � `n 2 ~ 00 15TH ST z :RIDAY W � w J � ARTHA LN U_ N o w WASHINGTON AVE CO � J w 12TH ST o Q 0 o a Co � LIME ST 0 N F- Q 11TH LU > z o� �I N 00 + n u N 9TH ST o „ 1 z o Ln� �P G Q Q z '� > 1< CIVIC CENTER DR ' 8TH ST o G&E z 7TH ST - LL UN-30 PAO 2_ _ _ --6TH-ST� i —- - - - - - - - w -5TH ST UN-30 ��• ; 3- W --- -- - -------- -- 5TH ST �-- - --SANTAANA�BLVD•- =-------•�--- ..,�-4TH w 3RD Or UN-20 2ND STO o ILU WALNUT ST N�C •.'r Q LL1 Q Ln General ® Commercial 1.0 FAR 35 feet Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and service commercial -Medium ® General 0.5 FAR 35 feet Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and service commercial Commercial ' Professional & Professional and administrative office and supporting service commercial and PAO-2 Administrative 2.0 FAR 3 stories restaurants Office -High Industrial/Flex -Low 1.5 FAR 3 stories Office/industrial flex spaces, small-scale R&D, clean manufacturing, live -work - Institutional 2.0 FAR 2 stories Government facilities, public service facilities, and public institutions - Open Space n/a 2 stories Recreational and green space, commercial open space, public infrastructure, and rail facilities OC Street Car (planned line / station) Note: See Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, for notes. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Ii �� .1..• FIGURE LU-18 LAND USE MAP 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD w Q = o „ z 0 (D /* ■ CENTRALAVE ADAMS ST Q lip ALTON AVE 1MBINE AVE COWAN MITCHEQ C.� WARNER AVE O� TABLE LU-7. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD High density urban villages consisting of District Center 2.0 FAR or visually stunning and vibrant buildings Medium 90 du/ac 6 stories and spaces with a wide range and mix of residential, live -work, commercial, hotel, and �Q employment -generating uses. Industrial/Flex Office/industrial flex spaces, R&D, clean -Medium 3.0 FAR 10 stories manufacturing, corporate headquarters and campuses. Live -work units are not permitted. General ® Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, service Commercial 1.5 FAR 35 feet commercial. -Medium High ®General 0.5 FAR 35 feet Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, service Commercial commercial. Note: The focus area also includes a nominal amount of land used by railroad operations and mapped with the = Open Space land use designation. See Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, for additional notes. Clarifications to the December 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework, Maps, Tables, Implementation, and Text February 15, 2022 golden city beyond A 81IAR8D V1810YA FO8 BANSA ANA The following represents revisions and corrections to be incorporated into the December 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan. The updated content is shown by element, with text edits and additions displayed with tracked changes. A summary table is also provided to detail revisions to the timeframe for completion of the Implementation Actions due to the delay in the adoption in the General Plan Update. Note, the prior Clarifications to the December 2021 Draft General Plan dated November 1, 2021, November 8, 2021, and November 29, 2021 have already been incorporated into the document. II►111Tel P111411111[0► The following definitions to be added: 1. Environmental Justice Area. A disadvantage communitv as defined by Government Code Section 65302(h)(4)(A), as amended from time to time, i.e. a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation, or an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 pf the Health and Safetv Code. as amended from time to time. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT General Plan Policies, Page OS-15 Paragraph three (3) to be revised as follows: Goal OS-1, for example, is supported not only by the policies listed in this element (OS-1.1 through OS- 3.86), but also by six goals and policies in the Community Element, five goals and policies in the Public Service Element, four policies in the Land Use Element, and four policies in the Urban Design Element. 3. Table OS-2, Related General Plan Policies, Page OS-15 Goal OS-1 to be corrected as follows: OS-1: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation. Provide an integrated system of accessible parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open space to serve the City of Santa Ana safe, accessible, sustaiRable and diveFse MOBILITY ELEMENT 4. Table M-1, Street Classifications. Page M-07. Add text to identify the typical sidewalk for the Street Classifications, as follows: Principal Arterial: 10 feet, Major Arterial: 10feet, Primary Arterial: 10 feet, Secondary Arterial 8feet, Divided Collector Arterial: 8 feet, and Collector Street: 10 feet. Clarifications to the December 2021 Draft General Plan February 15, 2021 LAND USE ELEMENT 5. Figure LU-13, Artist Rendering, Page LU-43. Rendering to be revised to blur out vehicle license plates. 6. Appendix A, Table LU-A-1 Interim Development Standards, Page LU 74. Insert the following text below the Table title. Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, Page LU 68. Insert the following text as the second to the last sentence in note # 5. The Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-668 regarding Development Project Plan Approval and applications required pursuant to SIB 330, as amended from time to time, apply to development projects applying the Interim Development Standards. 7. The following adjustments to the Agency and Target Dates for completion of General Plan Implementation Actions: Element Implementation Action No. Implementation Action Topic Agency Page Prior Target Date New Target Date Community CM 1.1 Recreation & cultural programs PRCSA/PBA CM 14 2022 2023 Community CM 1.3 Collaboration PBA/PRSCA CN 14 2022 2022-2024 Community CM 1.7 Rental property outreach PBA CM 15 2022 2022 & ongoing Community CM 3.4 Prevention activities PBA/CMO CM 15 2022 2022-2024 Community CM 3.5 Environmental education PBA/CMO CM 15 2021 2022-2024 Community CM 3.8 Environ. soil screening measures PBA CM 15 2022 2023 Conservation CN 1.2 Community identification PBA CN 19 2022 2022 & ongoing Conservation CN 1.3 Proactive engagement PBA CN 19 2022 2022 & ongoing Conservation CN 1.4 Health risk criteria PBA CN 19 2022 2022-2027 Conservation CN 1.5 Agency permits PBA CN 19 2022 2022 & ongoing Conservation CN 1.6 Emission monitoring PBA CN 19 2022 2022 & ongoing Conservation CN 1.7 Truck idling PBA/PD CN 19 2023 2022-2024 Conservation CN 1.10 Interagency team PBA CN 20 2022 2022 & ongoing Conservation CN 2.4 Preservation resources PBA CN 21 2022 2023 Conservation CN 3.1 CALGreen voluntary measures PBA CN 21 2022 2023 Conservation CN 3.2 LEED/ENVISION certification PBA/PWA CN 21 2022 Conservation CN 3.3 Green design guidelines PBA CN 21 2022 2023 Conservation CN 3.5 Funding Energy Projects PBA/CDA CN 21 2023 2023 & ongoing Economic Prosperity EP 1.9 Retail Attraction CDA EP 15 2022 2023 Historic Preservation HP 1.1 Development standards update PBA HP 12 2025 2022-2027 Historic Preservation HP 1.3 Mills Act PBA HP 12 2022 2023 Historic Preservation HP 1.4 Design Guidelines update PBA HP 12 2024 2022-2027 Land Use LU 1.1 Development Code Update PBA LU 69 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 1.2 Community benefit PBA/CDA LU 69 2022 2022 & ongoing Land Use LU 2.1 Periodic evaluation PBA LU 70 2025 2027 Land Use LU 2.3 Projections PBA LU 70 2021 & ongoing 2022 & ongoing Land Use LU 2.5 Developer outreach PBA/CDA LU 70 2022 2023 & ongoing Land Use LU 2.7 Fiscal impact model PBA/CDA LU 70 2021 2022 2 Clarifications to the December 2021 Draft General Plan February 15, 2021 Element Implementation Action No. Implementation Action Topic Agency Page Prior Target Date New Target Date Land Use LU 2.9 High -density housing PBA LU 70 2021 2024 Land Use LU 2.10 Open space requirements PBA/PRSCA LU 70 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 2.11 Displacement strategies PBA LU 70 2022 2022 & ongoing Land Use LU 2.12 Distinctive Districts PBA LU 70 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.2 Design guidelines and standards PBA LU 71 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.6 Lead paint abatement CDA/PBA LU 71 2021 2021 & ongoing Land Use LU 3.7 Building massing PBA LU 71 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.8 Signage PBA LU 71 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.10 Code enforcement PBA LU 71 2022 Ongoing Land Use LU 3.11 Neighborhood aesthetics PBA LU 71 2022 2022 & ongoing Land Use LU 3.12 Adaptive reuse PBA LU 71 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.15 Communication tools PBA LU 71 2022 2022-2024 Land Use LU 3.16 Health in corridors PBA LU 72 Ongoing 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.18 Renovations & lead prevention PBA LU 72 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 3.19 Promote health PBA LU 72 2022 2022-ongoing Land Use LU 3.21 Prevention education PBA LU 72 2022 2022-ongoing Land Use LU 3.22 Public health outcomes PBA LU 72 2021 & ongoing Ongoing Land Use LU 3.24 Public health PBA LU 72 2022 2022-2024 Land Use LU 3.26 Health conditions PBA LU 72 2022 2022-2024 Land Use LU 3.27 Groundwater practice PBA LU 72 2022 - annually Ongoing Land Use LU 3.28 Tenant Protections PBA LU 73 2022-annually 2022 & ongoing Land Use LU 4.1 Complete communities PBA LU 73 2023 2024 Land Use LU 4.3 Public Improvements in nodes PBW/PWA LU 73 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 4.4 Public/private open space PBA/PWA/PRSCA LU 73 2022 2022-2027 Land Use LU 4.6 Fireworks & environment PBA/CMO/PD LU 73 2022 2022-2024 Land Use LU 4.8 Mixed Use Lifestyles PBA LU 73 2022 2022-2027 Mobility M 2.5 Grade separation PWA M 22 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 2.6 Regional transit planning PWA/PBA/CDA M 22 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 2.7 Wayfinding program PWA M 22 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 3.1 Active transportation planning PWA M 22 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 3.4 Pedestrian opportunity zones PWA/PBA M 22 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 3.6 Drinking water access PWA M 22 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 4.1 Municipal code update PBA M 22 2022 2017 Mobility M 4.5 Citywide Design Guidelines PBA/PWA M 22 2023 2022-2027 Mobility M 4.7 Bike parking and amenities PBA M 22 2022 2022-2027 Mobility M 5.5 Tree preservation PWA M 23 2021-2035 2022-2035 Mobility M 5.10 Street medians PWA M 23 2030 2022-2035 Mobility M 5.11 Underground utilities program PWA M 23 2021-2035 2022-2035 Noise N 1.3 Noise mitigation impacted areas PBA N 12 Ongoing 2022-2024 Noise N 1.5 Noise ordinance PBA/PD N12 2022 2022-2027 Noise N 2.7 Best practices PBA/PD N12 2023 2022-2024 Open Space OS 1.3 Annual open space summit PWA PRSCA OS 16 2022 2023 & ongoing Clarifications to the December 2021 Draft General Plan February 15, 2021 Element Implementation Action No. Implementation Action Topic Agency Page Prior Target Date New Target Date Open Space OS 1.5 Park opportunity fund PRSCA OS 16 2021 2022 & ongoing Open Space OS 1.7a Public parkland - residential PBA/PRSCA CN 17 2022 2022-2027 Open Space OS 1.11 Joint us agreements PRSCA OS 17 2022 2022 & ongoing Open Space OS 1.14 Community partnerships PRSCA OS 17 2021 & ongoing Ongoing Open Space OS 2.9 Hours of operation PRSCA OS 18 2021 2022 Open Space OS 2.10 Evaluate programming PRSCA OS 18 2021 2022 & annually Open Space OS 2.11 Program and facility fees PRSCA OS 18 2021 2022 & ongoing Public Services PS 2.12 Health Need Assessment PBA/CMO PS 18 2023 2022-2024 Public Services PS 3.13 Administrative streamlining PBA PS 18 2022 2023 Public Service PS 3.14 Technology upgrades PBA/Finance PS 18 2022 2022-2024 Safety S 1.1 Agency coordination PBA S 14 Annually Ongoing Safety S 1.10 Climate resiliency PBA/PWA S 14 2022 2022-2024 Safety S 2.1 Facility location PBA/ OCFD S 15 2022 2022-2024 Safety S 2.4 Lead contamination PBA/CDA S 15 2022 2022-ongoing Safety S 2.5 Business education PBA/CDA S 15 2022 2022-2024 Safety S 4.3 Development code standards PBA S 16 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 1.2 Design guidelines PBA UD 23 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 1.3 Signage PBA UD 23 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 2.1 Emerging technology PBA/PWA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 2.2 Creative Expression PBA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 2.3 Billboards PBA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 3.2 Multimodal Transit Facilities PBA/PWA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 3.3 Bicycle parking PBA/CDA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 3.4 Cross -access PBA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 3.7 Streetscape Improvements PWA/PBA UD 24 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 3.8 Maintenance district PWA/PBA UD 24 2023 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 4.3 Allowable uses PBA UD 25 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 5.1 Landscaping focus intersections PBA UD 25 2022 2022-2027 Urban Design UD 5.3 Placemaking elements PWA/PBA UD 25 2024 2022-2027 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework, Maps, Tables, Implementation, and Text November 29, 2021 golden city A SXAR0.11 YISFON FO0. BANSA-A The following represents minor revisions and corrections made to the August 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan, in addition to the clarification of November 1 and November 8, 2021. The updated content is shown by element, with policy and implementation actions displayed with tracked changes. Updates to maps, tables, time frames, and other edits are either described, shown with tracked changes, or displayed as final content with a brief description of the nature of the changes. 141e1d:111VA41 a&IaL1kI - Page 5-09, POLICY 5-4.2 FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 77 Do not approve buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces, unless, feund consistent with the California Public Utilities Code Section 21240, such building or structure is determined by FAA to pose "no hazard" to air aviation.by the Ai F P e Ft La d 6- se C-e;, FR,;ss+o„TAL IJQ. Additionally, under this Policy,^ efdane +" � P@Ft :7:7Fequ applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface will be required to file a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC4-ef LAND USE ELEMENT Figure LU-4, Density and Intensity Map, page LU-16 Remove outlines to identify GC areas east of the 55 Freeway/Dyer Focus Area and the small parcels with the West Santa Ana Blvd Focus Area to the standard GC of 0.5 FAR. Table LU-3, Density and Intensity Standards, page LU-17 - Add the following to the end of Footnote 1. "FAR calculations exclude structured parking square footage." - Add the following to the end of Footnote 4. "Westview Housing project (SD-97) designated as UN-40 allow density up to 42.5 Du/acre." Figure LU-15, Land Use Map, West Santa Ana Boulevard, page LU-48 Remove the outline and label from the GC areas, with exception of the block of GC located northwest of First Street and Townsend. Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 29, 2021 Table LU-6, Land Use Designations, West Santa Ana Boulevard, page LU-49 Remove the "GC-1.5" reference and replace with standard "GC" reference (0.5 FAR and 35 feet maximum height) and GC-1 for the block of GC northwest of First Street and Townsend (also 35 feet maximum height). Figure LU-18, Land Use Map, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road, page LU-56 - Add the "GC" label to the area east of the 55 freeway. Table LU-7, Land Use Designations, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road, page LU-56 - Change the 2-story maximum height reference to 35 feet for the CG-1.5 area. - Add a row for General Commercial with 0.5 FAR and 35' maximum height. Figure LU-1, Page LU-12: - Change land use designation on map for the Legacy Sunflower project to UN-50. Table LU-3, Page LU-17: Change Note 4 as follows: Exception Areas. The Lake Center Development, near Lake Center Drive and Susan Street, defined by Specific Development Plan Number 58 (SD-58), allows intensities up to 0.72 FAR. The property located at 4040 W. Carnegie Ave. and approved by GPA No. 2000-08 allows intensities up to 0.47 FAR. Select properties designated UN-30 may also permit Hybrid Court building types with higher residential densities per the Transit Zoning Code. The 4th and Mortimer project in SD-84 designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. The Sunflower Legacy project in SD-94 designated UN-50 allows densities up - 63 units per acre. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. Page LU 22, 23, 24 add Footnote #4. "Refer to page LU-14 for Mixed Use Intensity/Density clarification." Table LU-4, Page LU-30; Table LU-5, Page LU-40; Table LU-6, Page LU-49; Table LU-7, Page LU-56; Table LU-8, Page LU-62: - Revise the note as follows: Coo Table I I I_o Net r- f... All F c n.e.a Desig atiens f.,.- ad-d-itie—RaI .IULebIveLe: :j Table LU-9 on pane LU-68 for additional criteria for all Focus Area desienations. Table LU-9, Page LU-68: Revise all references to "Focus Area Interim Development Guidelines" to "Focus Area Interim Development Standards" to ensure that readers understand the City's intent to use the direction provided in Appendix A as zoning regulations until such time that the City's Municipal Code is updated. Land Use Maps: - Figure LU-1, Page LU-12; Figure LU-4, Page LU-17; and Figure LU-18, Page LU-56: Remove "GC" designation from Hotel Terrace Drive. - Figure LU-1, Page LU-12 and Figure LU-4, Page LU-16 as follows: 2 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 29, 2021 Revise the following land use designations approved through prior general Plan amendments: Northeast block of Mountain View and First Street to match existing persuant GPA No. 2020-04. Hapham Project on Edinger Avenue GPA No. 2017-03; Sunflower Legacy Project GPA No. 2019-01; Westview Housing on 17t" Street GPA No. 2020- 07. The land use designations for the following properties identified by assessor parcel number (APN) have been corrected to correspond with the existing land use designations (APN 003- 161-10, 144-551-52, 016-045-19, 398-441-06, 411-131-38). No land use changes are proposed for these sites. • The land use designations for the following properties identified by assessor parcel number (APN) have been corrected to correspond with existing right-of-ways and will not be assigned a land use designation (APNs: 411-131-11, 008-131-33, 430-222-18, 430-222-19, 430-222-15, 430-222-17, 430-222-20, 430-222-22, 430-222-23, 398-082-33, 398-221-22, 398-221-23, 430-222-10, & 430-222-11). • The land use designations for the following properties identified by assessor parcel number have been revised to coincide with surrounding land uses or City park project (APNs: 396- 261-26, 396-261-38, 396-261-37, 396-261-38, 011-251-17, 011-251-18, 011-251-19, & 011- 251-20) OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Figure OS-2, Page OS-09 Figure OS-2: - Change the legend to read "Joint -use P-ar* School". Table OS-3 Open Space Element Implementation, Page OS 16: OS 1.7: Public parkland requirements for residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for I -Larger rResidential pRrojects to require public parkland within City limits and a 10-minute walking distance of the new residential projects. OS 1.7a: Open Space and Park land Incentives. Allow developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for the provision of park land for public use. Establish a process and program to incentivize developers to provide additional on -site and/or publicly accessible open space through the OFdonation between tw ^ 'clentoal PFGj ^Ets (of any sizeto create public park land and open space, such as expl^� ^^ ^ ^ housing density bonus eptiens Research and collaborate with residents, developers, and community organizations to design and implement an open space density bonus to incentivize the creation of additional on -site open space in exchange for more density in the project. Agency/Timeframe: PBA/PRCSA 2022 INTRODUCTION - Add an Introduction section for the General Plan to provide a brief overview of the GP's organization, a summary of the update process, and a glossary. 3 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework and Maps golden city beyond A SHARED VISION FOR SANFA ANA November 8, 2021 The following represents minor revisions and corrections made to the August 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan. The updated content is shown by element, with draft policy and implementation items displayed with tracked changed. Updates to maps, tables, time frames for implementation actions, and other text edits are either described or displayed as final content with a brief description of the nature of the changes. LAND USE ELEMENT Table LU-5, Land Use Designations, Grand Avenue and 171" Street Table LU-6, Land Use Designations, West Santa Ana Boulevard Table LU-7, Land Use Designations, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road - Revise General Commercial Land Use designation references in the Focus Areas such that the maximum height is changed from two (2) stories to 35 feet, consistent with height limit in General Commercial land use designations citywide. Figure LU-18, Land Use Map, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road - Revise proposed General Commercial (GC) land use designation area east of the 55 Freeway, from 1.5 FAR back to existing 0.5 FAR (consistent with the existing land uses and zoning district allowances). Figure LU-19, Artist Rendering, 55 Freeway and Dyer Road - Note #2, General Commercial "The area surrounding .... allowing for existing hotel uses on both sides of the 55 Freeway to remain and promoting new commercial development. MOBILITY ELEMENT Figure M-2, Master Plan of Bikeways - Revise to show the following: 1. Newhope Street (New Class II) a. between McFadden Avenue to 1st Street b. between Hazard Avenue to Westminster Avenue 2. McFadden Avenue between West City Limit to Harbor Boulevard (New Class II) 3. Fairview Street (New Class 1) 1 Clarification to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 8, 2021 a. Between Civic Center Drive and Trask Avenue b. Between Warner Avenue and Sunflower Avenue 4. Susan Street between Alton Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard (New Class 11) 5. Santa Ana River (New Class 1) a. between Edinger Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard b. between Memory Lane and SR-22 6. PE ROW between Westminster Avenue and Raitt Street (New Class 1) 7. OCFCD (New Class 1) a. between Westminster Avenue and West City Limit b. between 15t Street and Monta Vista Avenue c. between Occidental Street and Alton Avenue d. between Edinger Avenue and Sunflower Avenue 8. LOSSAN Corridor between 6t" Street and Chestnut Avenue (New Class 1) 9. Greenville Street between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue (New Class 11) 10. Willits Street between Orange County District Flood Channel and Raitt Street (Class IV to Class II) 11. Walnut Avenue (Class 11 to Class 111) a. between 15t street and Raitt Street b. between west of Pacific Avenue and Pacific Avenue 12. Bristol Street between Edinger Avenue and Washington Avenue (New Class IV) 13. Civic Center Drive between Bristol Street and Broadway (New Class II) 14. Chestnut Avenue between Cypress Avenue and Grand Avenue (New Class 11) 15. Cypress Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and 1st Street (New Class II) 16. Standard Avenue between 1st Street and 4t" Street (New Class II) 17. 5t" Street French Street to Lacy Street (New Class 11) 18. Lacy Street between 5t" Street and 6t" Street (New Class III) 19. Brown Street between Lacy Street and Garfield Street (New Class IV) 20. Garfield Street between Brown Street and 6t" Street (New Class IV) 21. 15t Street between Grand Avenue and East City Limit (New Class IV) 22. Cabrillo Park Drive between 1" Street and 4t" Street (New Class 11) 23. Grand Avenue (New Class II) a. between 215Y Street and Fairhaven Avenue b. 1" Street and 4t" Street 24. Fairhaven Avenue Dayna Street to East City Limit (New Class IV) 25. Sunflower Avenue Bristol Street to Main Street (New Class 11) 26. Warner Avenue Pullman Street to Red Hill Avenue (New Class II) Implementation Action M-4.4 - Reevaluate the Residential Permit Parking Program to ensure it complies with state law and best practices. 2 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan Draft Policy Framework, Maps, Tables, Implementation, and Text November 1, 2021 golden city The following represents minor revisions and corrections made to the August 2021 version of the Draft Santa Ana General Plan. The updated content is shown by element, with policy and implementation actions displayed with tracked changes. Updates to maps, tables, time frames, and other edits are either described, shown with tracked changes, or displayed as final content with a brief description of the nature of the changes. VISION STATEMENT [each element] A SHARED VISION Santa Ana is a city that promotes the health and wellness of all residents, with a civic culture that actively embraces the power of diversity. Our city invests in resources that create economic opportunities for the next generation, and it is a community that celebrates our past while working together to create a sustainable future. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Implementation Action 1.19 - Climate Action Plan. Review and update the City's Climate Action Plan. Time frame: 2023 [updated to reflect Council Climate Action Resolution on 917121] Table CN-1, CalEnviroScreen Scores for Environmental Justice Communities The table was updated with the final CES 4.0 results, which were finalized and released in October 2021. Based on the final composite scores, two census tracts were added that met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074005 and 6059074106) and one census tract was removed that no longer met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074004). The individual composite, pollution, and population percentile scores, as well as the individual pollution and population variables were also updated based on the finalized CES 4.0 results. Figure CN-3, Environmental Justice Communities - The map updated with the final CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 results, which were finalized and released in October 2021. Based on the final composite scores, two census tracts were added that met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074005 and 6059074106) and one census tract was removed that no longer met the 75t" percentile criteria (6059074004). Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - POLICY OS-1.2 PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM* Provide and support a comprehensive and integrated network of parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open space that is diverse, with a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities. - POLICY OS-1.3 PARK STANDARD* Establish and maintain public parks, open space, and recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Attain a minimum of two acres of land per 1,000 persons residing in the City of Santa Ana. - POLICY OS 1.4 PARK DISTRIBUTION* Ensure the City residents have access to public or private parks, recreation facilities, or trails in the City of Santa Ana, within 10-minute walking and biking distance of home. Prioritize provision, programs, and partnerships in park deficient an environmental justice areas. [Policy OS-1.4 was left out of the August 2021 draft due to an editing error and showed up as a duplicate of Policy OS-1.5.] Implementation Action 1.7 Public parkland requirements for residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within City limits and a 10- minute walking distance of the new residential projects. Allow developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for the provision of park land for public use. Establish a process and program to incentivize publicly accessible open space through the coordination between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create public park land and open space, such as exploring housing density bonus options . Implementation Action 1.16 [new action] - Acquisitions to meet park standard. Using the Park Master Plan as guidance, identify and acquire property within the City for park and open space use which will focus on bringing the park and recreation system to 2 acres of land per 1,000 residents with a plan to keep pace with future urban growth. Agency/Time Frame: PRCSA 2022 & ongoing Table OS-1, Open Space Resources - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to recategorize Roosevelt Community Center from a Neighborhood Park to as a joint -use facility and a part of the Roosevelt Community Center Park. - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to remove Griset Park and Neal Machander Tennis Center as both facilities are school facilities without joint -use agreements. - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to rename "Willard Intermediate Park" to "Willard Intermediate Playlot", with the acreage figure update to reflect more accurate boundaries. 2 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 - The table (listing) was updated rename "Willard Intermediate Park" to "Willard Intermediate School". - The table (listing and acreage) was updated to remove Spurgeon Intermediate and Rosita Elementary schools as joint -use agreements are no longer active. - The table was updated to correct the number of linear miles of City bikeways/trails from 22.7 to 15.74 miles. - The table was updated to incorporate the numerical references found on Figure OS-1, Open Space Resources Figure OS-1, Open Space Resources - The map was corrected to be consistent with Figure M-2, Master Plan of Bikeways. The correction involved the removal of the Class I Bikeway/Trail segment west of Broadway. The map was corrected to reflect changes in Table OS-1, to correct the categorization of Standard and McFadden as a public park, to remove the sole private park, and to update the legend accordingly. Figure OS-2, Walking Distance to Park Facilities The map was updated to reflect the correct darker blue colorization for the Joint -use Park symbology, to reflect changes in Table OS-1, and to reflect a more accurate listing of joint -use facilities. SAFETY ELEMENT Table of Contents - The reference date for the City's draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was updated from March 2021 to August 2021 to reflect the latest version. Preamble, page S 01 - The following text was added to specifically incorporate the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference into the General Plan. "The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City of Santa Ana planning area was developed in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and followed FEMA's 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The LHMP incorporates a process where hazards are identified and profiled, the people and facilities at risk are analyzed, and mitigation actions are developed to reduce or eliminate hazard risk. The implementation of these mitigation actions, which include both short and long-term strategies, involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities." W_1►1WRII441a &Ia►III 1 - POLICY LU-1.6 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 3 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 Encourage residential mixed -use development within the city's District Centers, Urban Neighborhoods, and adjacent to high -quality transit. - POLICY LU-2.8 CITY IMAGE Encourage land uses, development projects, and public art installations that promote the city's image as a cultural, governmental, and business -friendly regional center Implementation Action 3.25 - LU IA 3.25 Engage EJ communities. Work with community serving organizations, neighborhood leaders, and residents to form an Ad Hoc Committee to develop ongoing EJ Community Engagement programs for existing and new disadvantaged EJ communities, including multilingual communication protocols. Host biannual or quarterly Roundtable meetings with local stakeholders to guide and evaluate implementation of environmental justice policies. Table LU-3, Density and Intensity Standards, page LU 17 - The table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. The table was revised to provide more specific maximum intensity and height standards for the MainPlace (DC-2.1) and City Place (DC-2.54) development areas that align with the approved zoning. Footnote 2, Typical Maximum Height, was revised as follows to add additional language to ensure that readers understand the City's intent to govern height through general plan policy standards and zoning regulations: Typical Maximum Height. The typical maximum heights identify the upper limit of a typical building height within each density and intensity category, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed in this table. The allowable height of development on any parcel is subject to the zoning standards (in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code) and, if within a focus area, the focus area maximum height (starting on page LU-26 of this element), both of which may further restrict the allowable height. Some properties within a height district, as defined in Section 41-602 of the municipal code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights above the typical maximum height depicted here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standard where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown in this table. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay - subzone Village Center = 6 story max, subzone Active Urban = no limit; Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - subzone Transit Node = 10 story max, subzone Neighborhood Transitional = 3 story max, subzone Corridor = 4 story max; Transit Zoning Code - subzone Corridor = 3 story max. - Revised Footnote 4, Exception Areas, to add the following language: The 4th and Mortimer project designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. 4 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 Figure LU-1, Land Use Map, page LU 12 - The map was revised to reflect the Change from DC-5 to UN -SO for portions of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Urban Center. Figure LU-4, Density and Intensity Map, page LU 16 - The map was revised to change: o From DC-3 to DC 2.1 for the MainPlace SP o From DC-3 to DC 2.54 for the City Place development o From DC-3 to DC-5 for portions of the Harbor Corridor SP designated as Transit Node o From DC-5 to UN-50 for portions of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Urban Center o From UN-20 to UN-40 for portions of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Corridor o From UN-50 to UN -30 for portion of the Transit Zoning Code designated as Urban Neighborhood 2 Table of Contents - The title of Appendix A was revised from "Focus Area Interim Development Guidelines" to "Focus Area Interim Development Standards" to ensure that readers understand the City's intent to use the direction provided in Appendix A as zoning regulations until such time that the City's Municipal Code is updated. Caption to image before preamble - Sana Ana County Seat and Downtown. Introduction, page LU 02 The city has also expanded beyond its historic role as the civic center and County Seat of Orange County and is emerging as the county's cultural and economic hub. Density and Intensity Standards, page LU 14 - First paragraph under previous header of "DENSITY AND INTENSITY IN SANTA ANA" moved to be first paragraph at the top of the page. - Nonresidential Intensity Floor area ratio (FAR) is a measurement used to identify nonresidential land use intensity. The FAR is the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot compared to the total area of that lot. Higher FARs generally indicate larger buildings and/or more stories, but Figure LU-3, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), illustrates that the size and height of the building can vary a great deal within the same FAR. Note, FAR is also a measure used in mixed -use area buildout as described below. 5 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 - Mixed Use Density and Intensity To encourage a dynamic mixture of residential, office, clean industrial, and commercial uses in mixed -use areas (Industrial/Flex, Urban Neighborhood, One Broadway Plaza District Center, and District Center'), when both residential and nonresidential uses are planned the density... [added Footnote 1]: 1. District Centers that are part of a special planning area, as shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to special development standards may be regulated by FAR alone. - Rounding [new text] When calculating the square footage allowed for a proposed development, no upward rounding is permitted in determining the final permitted intensity. Likewise, no upward rounding is permitted in calculating the allowable number of residential units. For example, in a calculation producing a yield of 12.7 units for a given development site, 12 units are permitted. Footnote 1, Typical Maximum Height, pages LU 18, 19, and 21 1. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed on this page. The allowable height of development on any parcel is also subject to the zoning standards (Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further specify allowable height. Some properties within a height district, per Section 41-602 of the Municipal Code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights in excess of the typical maximum height shown here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page. Industrial / Flex category revisions, page LU 22 - Maximum Intensity in table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. Typical Maximum Height Footnote 1, page LU 22 1. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed on this page. The allowable height of development on any parcel is also subject to the zoning standards (Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further specify allowable height. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page. UN category revisions, page LU 23 - Maximum Intensity in table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. Typical Maximum Height Footnote 2, page LU 23 M Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan November 1, 2021 2. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed on this page. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - UN-30 in subzone Neighborhood Transitional = 3 story max, UN-50 in subzone Corridor = 4 story max; Transit Zoning Code - UN-40 in subzone Corridor = 3 story max. UN-30 Footnote 3, page LU 23 3. UN-30 designations in the South Bristol Street Focus Area have a maximum height of 3 stories (see Table LU-8 on page LU-62). Where the maximum height allowed in a focus area conflicts with the height shown on this page, the focus area maximum height shall prevail. The 4th and Mortimer project designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. DC category revisions, page LU 24 DC 2.1 and DC 2.54 categories added table with description of DC land uses, with maximum intensity and height standards to align with the approved zoning. - Maximum Intensity in table was revised to clarify that density and intensity may be regulated by floor area ratio (FAR) and/or dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for mixed use designations. Footnote 2, page LU 24 2. The typical maximum height identifies the upper limit of typical building height, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be differentthan listed on this page. The allowable height of development on any parcel is also subject to the zoning standards (Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further specify allowable height. Some properties within a height district, per Section 41-602 of the Municipal Code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights in excess of the typical maximum height shown here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay - DC-3 in subzone Village Center= 6 story max, DC-3 in subzone Active Urban = no limit; Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - DC-5 in subzone Transit Node =10 story max. Footnote 4, page LU 24 [new text] 4. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. 7 ABOUT THE MAP. This map displays the City's long-term plan for a comprehensive bicycle network, with a hierarchy of facilities that provide varying levels of design, signage, and separation from vehicles. The City intends to provide a safe and efficient system that reduces the reliance on the automobiles and facilitates an increase in bicycling by choice. Table M-2 describes each bicycle classification. Class I Path Class III Bike Route / Boulevard Class II Bike Lane Class IV Cycle Track ^,,I - CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Source: City of Santa Ana (2020) Date Published: 11/8/2021 FIGURE M-2 MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS TABLE CN-1. CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES Census Low Percentile Score & Quartile Rank Variables in the Upper Quartile Income Composite Pollution Population Pollution Population Tract Neighborhood(s) 6059074003 Delhi No •• 56 AQ DPM ITD I CS LB GWIHZIL 6059074300 Delhi, Madison Park Yes 73 AQ I S II I HZ LB I ED I HB i SW 6059074200 Delhi, Madison Park, Yes 71 AQ I GW I L I HZ ED I LI I POV Memorial Park Sunwood Central, 6059074005 Rosewood Baker, South Yes 65 AQ I L ED I LI Coast 6059074108 Centennial Park Yes ' • 66 AQ I L I CS I HZ LB I ED 6059074106 n/a Yes ' • ft4 AQ I CS I GW I HZ LB I ED 6059074109 Valley Adams Yes 65 AQ I L I HZ ED I HB 6059089004 Riverview West Yes AQ I DPM I L EDI LI I POV I HB 6059089001 Riverview West Yes 70 AQ ED I LI I POV I HB 6059089105 Santa Anita Yes 65 AQ I L I TD ED I LI POV I HB 6059074403 Cornerstone Village, Yes 57 AQ I TD I CS I HZ EDI LI I POV I HB Lyon St 6059074406 Lyon St, Saddleback AQ I DPM I TD I CS EDI LI I POV I HB View Yes Yes I SW L LB 6059074602 Madison Park, Pacific AQI CS I HZI L EDI LII POV I HB Park 6059074502 Cedar Evergreen, Yes AQ I CS I GW I HZ EDI LI I POV I HB Madison Park L French Court, French AQ I DPM I TD I CS 6059074405 Park, Lacy, Logan, Yes I SW I L ED LI POV HB Pacific Park Downtown, French Park, AQ I DPM I CS I HZ 6059075002 Heninger Park, Lacy, Yes I SW I L LB I ED LI I POV Pacific Park, Willard Rankings Quartile 2 = Moderate Quartile 3 = Poor • Variable in the CES 4.0 model: Pollution Exposure Environmental Effects Sensitive Population Socioeconomic Factors AQ = Air Quality (incl. CS = Toxic Cleanup Sites LB = Low Birth Weight LI = Linguistic Isolation Ozone, PM2.5, Toxic Releases) GW: Groundwater Threats POV = Poverty DPM- Diesel Particulate Matter HZ = Hazardous Waste HB = Housing Burden TD = Traffic Density SW = Solid Waste Sites/Facilities ED = Educational Attainment L = Lead UE = Unemployment Note: Indicators not ranked in upper quartile: air quality (ozone); air quality (PM2.5); drinking water contaminants; pesticide use; impaired water bodies; asthma; cardiovascular disease; unemployment. Low income status consistent with Assembly Bill 1550 and mapping by the California Air Resources Board. ^,I - CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN TABLE CN-1. CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES 6059074901 Flower Park, Heninger Yes AQ I CS I HZ I L EDP LI I POV I UE Park, Pico Lowell 6059075201 Artesia Pillar Yes AQ I HZ L LBIEDILIIPOV � UE HB 6059075202 Artesia Pilar Yes AQ I CS I HZ I L ED I LI UE I HB 6059074801 Artesia Pilar, Central City Yes AQ I HZ I L ED I LI I POV 6059075004 French Court, Santa Ana Yes AQ DPM I TD L ED I LI I POV I HB Triangle 6059074805 Bella Vista Yes 63 AQ ED LI POV HB Flower Park, Washington 6059075100 Square, Willard, Floral Yes 64 AQ I CS I HZ I L ED I LI Park, West Floral Park 6059074802 Casa Bonita, Artesia Pilar Yes 58 AQ I CS I HZ I L ED I LI I POV Rankings uartile 1 =Good Quartile 2 = Moderate Quartile 3 = Poor Quartile ruartile I = Good Variable in the CES 4.0 model: Pollution Exposure Environmental Effects Sensitive Population Socioeconomic Factors AQ = Air Quality (incl. CS = Toxic Cleanup Sites LB = Low Birth Weight LI = Linguistic Isolation Ozone, PM2.5, Toxic Releases) GW: Groundwater Threats POV = Poverty DPM- Diesel Particulate Matter HZ = Hazardous Waste HB = Housing Burden TD = Traffic Density SW = Solid Waste Sites/Facilities ED = Educational Attainment L = Lead UE = Unemployment Note: Indicators not ranked in upper quartile: air quality (ozone); air quality (PM2.5); drinking water contaminants; pesticide use; impaired water bodies; asthma; cardiovascular disease; unemployment. Low income status consistent with Assembly Bill 1550 and mapping by the California Air Resources Board. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN M10"a.... ABOUT THE MAP. This map shows the boundaries of Santa Ana's environmental justice communities based on data from CalEPA's CalEnviroScreen tool. The boundaries represent the areas where the City's policies will emphasize and prioritize improving existing environmental conditions, expanding access to public facilities and resources, and augmenting opportunities for civic engagement. _ Environmental Justice Communities FIGURE CN-3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Date Published: 11/1/2021 Environmental Justice Community: The City uses a mapping tool from CaIEPA called CalEnviroScreen (CES) to identify the mostvulnerable and disadvantaged areas in Santa Ana. The CES tool measures 21 indicators for every census tract in California related to people's exposure to pollution and quality of life. The results for each census tract are combined and measured against every other census tract, producing a composite score that ranks census tracts from the least impacted to the most impacted. Those ranked in the top 25 percent —shown with values between 15 and 100 percent —are considered disadvantaged or environmental justice communities. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN J!pg,,"I TABLE 05-1. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Park Name COMMUNITY 1. Carl Thornton Park Acres 32.70 Park Name 3. Jerome Park Acres 19.27 Park Name 5. Santiago Park Acres 34.57 2. Centennial Regional Park NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 6. Adams Park 65.26 145.86 5.68 4. Memorial Park 14. Edna Park 16.30 3.56 -- 22. Portola Park -- 9.07 7. Angels Community Park 1.60 15. El Salvador Park 8.91 23. Riverview Park 8.33 8. Birch Park 2.37 16. Fisher Park 2.58 24. Rosita Park 8.68 9. Bomo Koral Park 10.40 17. Heritage Park 6.44 25. Sandpointe Park 7.73 10. Cabrillo Park 7.60 18. Lillie King Park 10.40 26. Santa Anita Park 5.05 11. Cabrillo Tennis Center 3.61 19. Mabury Park 5.46 27. Windsor Park 10.81 12. Cesar Chavez Campesino Park 6.48 20. Madison Park 6.04 -- -- 13. Delhi Park SMALL PARKS 28. 17th Street Triangle 9.94 11.84 0.70 21. Morrison Park 34. Garfield Fitness Park 5.12 0.10 -- 40. Raitt and Myrtle -- 1.09 29. Chepa's Park 0.41 35. Maple Occidental Exercise Park 0.96 41. Saddleback View Park 0.92 30. Colonel William W. Eldridge Park 1.20 36. Mariposa Park 0.43 42. Sarah May Downie Herb Garden 0.13 31. Fairview Triangle 0.74 37. McFadden Triangle Park 0.77 43. Segerstrom Triangle Park 1.33 32. French Park 0.21 38. Memory Lane Park 0.56 44. Standard and McFadden Park 0.66 33. Friendship Park SPECIALTY PARKS 46. Civic Center Plaza 0.10 24.78 4.89 39. Pacific Electric Park 48. Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park 1.41 18.75 45. Willard Intermediate Playlot -- 0.12 -- 47. Plaza Calle Cuatro • •• 50. Garfield Community Center 0.20 0.39 49. Sasscer Park 0.94 53. Madison Elementary School 0.03 56. Willard Intermediate School -- 4.85 51. Godinez Fundamental High School 18.58 54. Monte Vista Elementary School 2.40 -- -- 52. James Monroe Elementary School OTHER OPEN SPACE 57. River View Golf Course 2.91 282.77 81.78 55. Roosevelt Community Center Park 2.62 59. Fairhaven Memorial Cemetery 66.83 -- 61. St. John's Lutheran Cemetery -- 4.23 58. Willowick Golf Course 102.11 City Bikeways/Trails - 15.74 miles 60. Santa Ana Cemetery 27.82 Santa Ana River Trail - 3.70 miles -- -- TOTAL• OTHER ••TOTAL Notes: The numbering corresponds to the labels on Figure OS-1, Open Space Resources. The list of parks and acreage figures are accurate as of October 2021. All figures are subject to rounding. ^,I - CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN ABOUT THE MAP. This map shows the number, type, and distribution of open space areas in Santa Ana, with the majority representing parks and trails owned and operated by the City. The City also maintains joint -use agreements with schools to expand public parks and recreation resources. Golf course and cemetery areas provide a more limited form of recreation or open space. See Table OS-1, Open Space Resources, for a listing of parks and open space resources with numbering that is consistent with the labels on this figure. Open Space Type _ Community Park _ Neighborhood Park _ Small Park _ Specialty Park _ Joint -use School Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published:11/22/2021 Golf Course Class 1 Bikeway/Trail (Existing & Planned) Cemetery FIGURE OS-1 OPEN SPACE RESOURCES CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 1� .1..• ABOUT THE MAP. This map shows the walking distance from publicly accessible parks. This map can help identify neighborhoods that may be underserved or have limited access to parks and recreation facilities. The City seeks to ensure an equitable distribution of access to these facilities for all Santa Ana residents. GARDEN GROVE I! FOUNTAIN VALLEY 0\ 1Mi Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published: 11/29/2021 Park Type Walking Distance From Existing or Proposed Park _ Community Park Specialty Park 1/4 Mile _ Neighborhood Park Joint -use School 1/2 Mile _ Small Park Class 1 Bikeway/Trail Current or Future Residential Area more than 1/2 Mile (Existing & Planned) Walking Distance from an Existing or Planned Park Facility FIGURE OS-2 WALKING DISTANCE TO PARK FACILITIES CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 1� .1..• About the Map. Figure LU-1 shows the fundamental pattern of land use by displaying the pattern and distribution of land use designations across the entire city, down to the parcel level. GARDEN GROVE Garden Grove Blvd . ■ I. d. F� �Tr--ask Ave ---� j ■ r � Westminster Ave ��, ��`y,,I- P M - i Hazard /A, r (.A v 0 3 z FOUNTAIN VALLEY Slater Ave Talbert Ave = I � _i Segerstrom Ave ORANGE La Veta Ave - I '1101Falirrhavenit9ve I , San@a C.I,ara Ave ME . K MI" , Alton Ave W-0 MacArthur Blvd.w' •�� �11E. inni , I ) �10 55 L v a •• Edinger Ave P �a a TUSTIN 1 • ed�r •.9ir d��a Y IRVINE COSTA MESA \ \ Miles 0 0.5 1 General Plan Land Use Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published: 11/30/2021 LR-7, Low Density Residential INS, Institutional FLEX, Industrial/Flex LMR-11, Low -Medium Density Residential OS, Open Space UN, Urban Neighborhood _ MR-15, Medium Density Residential PAO, Professional and Administrative Office OBPDC, One Broadway Plaza District Center _ CR-30, Corridor Residential GC, General Commercial DC, District Center IND, Industrial FIGURE LU-1 LAND USE MAP �i �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN About the Map. Figure LU-4 combined with Table LU-3 describe the general plan standards for development intensity and density and show where they apply. GARDEN GROVE Garden Grove Blvd FOUNTAIN VALLEY General Plan Land Use LR-7, Low Density Residential LMR-11, Low -Medium Density Residential _ MR-15, Medium Density Residential _ CR-30, Corridor Residential INS, Institutional _ OS, Open Space _ PAO, Professional and Administrative Office _ GC, General Commercial IND, Industrial Miles 0 0.5 1 Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Date Published:11/30/2021 _ FLEX, Industrial/Flex _ UN, Urban Neighborhood _ OBPDC, One Broadway Plaza District Center _ DC, District Center FIGURE LU-4 DENSITY AND INTENSITY MAP �i �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN TABLE LU-3. DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Low Density Residential (LR-7) 7 du/ac 2 storieSZ _ Low -Medium Density Residential (LMR-11) 11 du/ac 3 storieSZ - Medium Density Residential (MR-15) 15 du/ac 3 storieSZ _ Corridor Residential (CR-30) 30 du/ac 3 storieSZ - Institutional (INS) n/a n/a - Open Space (OS) n/a n/a Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) 0.5 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories' PAO-1 Professional and Administrative Office -Medium (PAO-1) 1.0 FAR 35 feet or 3 storieS2,3 PAO-1.5 Professional and Administrative Office -Medium High (PAO-1.5) 1.5 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories' PAO 2 Professional and Administrative Office -High (PAO-2) 2.0 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories2,3 _ General Commercial (GC) 0.5 35 feet' General Commercial -Medium (GC-1) 1.0 FAR 35 feet2,3 ® General Commercial -Medium High (GC-1.5) 1.5 FAR 35 feet2,3 Industrial (IND) 0.45 FAR 35 feet' Industrial/Flex- Low (FLEX-1.5) 1.5 FAR and/or 30 du/ac 3 storieSZ FLEX- Industrial/Flex- Medium (FLEX-3) 3.0 FAR 10 storieSZ UN-20 Urban Neighborhood -Low (UN-20) 1.0 FAR and/or 20 du/ac 3 storieSZ UN-30 Urban Neighborhood -Medium Low (UN-30) 1.5 FAR and/or 30 du/ac4 4 stories2,3 UN-40 Urban Neighborhood -Medium (UN-40) 1.5 FAR and/or 40 du/ac4 5 storieSZ UN-50 Urban Neighborhood -Medium High (UN-50) 1.5 FAR and/or 50 du/ac4 6 storieSZ - One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) 2.9 FAR 37 storieSZ - District Center -Low (DC-1) 1.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 6 storieSZ - District Center -Medium Low (DC-1.5) 1.5 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 storieSZ - District Center -Medium (DC-2) 2.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 storieS2,3 - District Center -Medium (DC-2.1) 2.1 FAR 20 stories - District Center -Medium (DC-2.54) 2.54 FAR 5 stories - District Center -Medium High (DC-3) 3.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 storieSZ - District Center -High (DC-5) 5.0 FAR and/or 125 du/ac4 25 storieS2,3 Notes: 1. Maximum Density/Intensity. The maximum density/intensity identifies the upper limit of density and intensity allowed within each category. All development is also subject to the zoning standards (in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code), which may further restrict the allowable density or intensity. Zoning standards shall not exceed the maximum density/intensity standards herein unless listed as an exception area in the notes below. FAR calculations exclude structured parking square footage. 2. Typical Maximum Height. The typical maximum heights identify the upper limit of a typical building height within each density and intensity category, but the actual maximum standard allowed on each site may be different than listed in this table. The allowable height of development on any parcel is subject to the zoning standards (in Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code) and, if within a focus area, the focus area maximum height (starting on page LU-26 of this element), both of which may further restrict the allowable height. Some properties within a height district, as defined in Section 41-602 of the municipal code, within an adopted or existing special planning area shown on Figure LU-2, or subject to Specific Development (SD) standards allow heights above the typical maximum height depicted here. The general plan height standard shall equal the zoning height standard where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown in this table. This includes, but is not limited to the following: Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay - subzone Village Center = 6 story max, subzone Active Urban = no limit; Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan - subzone Transit Node = 10 story max, subzone Neighborhood Transitional = 3 story max, subzone Corridor= 4 story max; Transit Zoning Code - subzone Corridor = 3 story max. 3. Maximum Heights in Focus Areas. Properties inside focus areas with PAO-1, PAO-2, GC-1, GC-1.5, UN-30, DC-2, and DC-5 designations may have a lower maximum height than shown here (see Focus Areas starting on page LU-26 for the maximum heights allowed in each focus area). Where the maximum height allowed in a focus area is lower than the typical maximum height shown in this table, the focus area maximum height shall prevail. 4. Exception Areas. The Lake Center Development, near Lake Center Drive and Susan Street, defined by Specific Development Plan Number 58 (SD-58), allows intensities up to 0.72 FAR. The property located at 4040 W. Carnegie Ave. and approved by GPA No. 2000-08 allows intensities up to 0.47 FAR. Select properties designated UN-30 may also permit Hybrid Court building types with higher residential densities per the Transit Zoning Code. The 4th and Mortimer project in SD-84 designated UN-30 allows densities up to 50 du/ac. The Sunflower Legacy project in SD-94 designated UN-50 allows densities up to 63 units per acre. The Harbor Corridor Specific Plan District Centers are limited to a max of 90 units per acre. The Westview Housing project (SD-97) designated as UN-40 allows density up to 42.5 du/acre. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Ii .1..• FIGURE LU-1 1 LAND USE MAP GRAND AVENUE AND 17TH STREET w V) Q JNTRY RD GROVLMUiv i -')I w w w Q RD a a z o z z � O O U > a CLARA o AVE Q z O jJ BUFFALO AVE z z AVALON AVE t F CATALINA AVE 21ST ST Q ~ w 20TH ST n � 19TH ST II `2 2 SHINGTON AVE TABLE LU-5. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RIO GRAND AVENUE AND 17TH STREET Transit -oriented urban - District Center 2.0 FAR or 6 village with a wide range -Medium 90 du/ac stories and mix of residential, live -work, commercial, and employment -generating uses Urban Neighborhood 1.0 FAR or 3 Medium -high density urban 20 du/ac stories neighborhoods with a mix -Low of attached single- and multifamily housing; mixed - Urban Neighborhood 1.5 FAR or 4 -Medium -Medium Low du/ac stories use residential with ground- g floor retail, services, and 1.5FAR or 5 Urban restaurants; cultural uses; N-40 Neighborhood 40 du/ac stories public and open s aces p p -Medium F Office/industrial flex spaces, Industrial/Flex ® 1.5 FAR 3 small-scale R&D, clean -Low stories General 35 Shopping, restaurants, Commercial 1.0 FAR feet entertainment, service -Medium commercial Notes: 17TH The focus area also includes a nominal amount of land used by railroad operations and mapped with the = Open Space land use designation. See Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, for additional notes. LU aY 2 Q g o 14TH ST o J z m WELLINGTON ALI p N n U H Sl 4TH ST FRUIT ST D C) m z M m O > a FIGURE LU-15 LAND USE MAP WEST SANTA ANA BOULEVARD SUNSWEPT AVE MpRNINGSOE AVE w d w SILVER DR J I � 0 � w � z Q � W � HAZARD AVE 0 o w w J L.LJ J c� co > 0 `L------------ m J z _ p v~i W Y J z = U w Q Q n z � N D Q (_ �r r r WE 1q9 TABLE LU-6. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WEST SANTA ANA BOULEVARD UN-20 �• _FLEX-1.5 .'\ __ I I------- _r'GC-1 Low Density 7 du/ac 2 stories Low-rise single-family neighborhoods Residential Low -Medium - Density 11 du/ac 2 stories Single-family homes, duplexes, small -lot subdivisions, and mobile -home parks Residential - Medium A mix of low- and medium -rise neighborhoods with single and multifamily housing, Density 15 du/ac 3 stories Residential including small lot subdivisions, townhomes, live/work units - Corridor Medium density urban housing, such as attached townhomes and apartments, Residential 30 du/ac 3 stories along corridors or adjacent to areas designated General Commercial, Urban Neighborhood, or District Center Urban 1.0 FAR or UN 20 Neighborhood 20 du/ac 3 stories -Low Medium density urban neighborhoods with a mix of attached single and multifamily housing; mixed -use residential with ground -floor retail, services, and restaurants; LnUrban 1.5 FAR or cultural uses; and public and open spaces Neighborhood 30 du/ac 4 stories Medium Low �� �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 1q9 TABLE LU-6. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WEST SANTA ANA BOULEVARD UN-20 �• _FLEX-1.5 .'\ __ I I------- _r'GC-1 Low Density 7 du/ac 2 stories Low-rise single-family neighborhoods Residential Low -Medium - Density 11 du/ac 2 stories Single-family homes, duplexes, small -lot subdivisions, and mobile -home parks Residential - Medium A mix of low- and medium -rise neighborhoods with single and multifamily housing, Density 15 du/ac 3 stories Residential including small lot subdivisions, townhomes, live/work units - Corridor Medium density urban housing, such as attached townhomes and apartments, Residential 30 du/ac 3 stories along corridors or adjacent to areas designated General Commercial, Urban Neighborhood, or District Center Urban 1.0 FAR or UN 20 Neighborhood 20 du/ac 3 stories -Low Medium density urban neighborhoods with a mix of attached single and multifamily housing; mixed -use residential with ground -floor retail, services, and restaurants; LnUrban 1.5 FAR or cultural uses; and public and open spaces Neighborhood 30 du/ac 4 stories Medium Low �� �� .�..• CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 17TH ST - - ----- - i- i— z "' � `n 2 ~ 00 15TH ST z :RIDAY W � w J � ARTHA LN U_ N o w WASHINGTON AVE CO � J w 12TH ST o Q 0 o a Co � LIME ST 0 N F- Q 11TH LU > z o� �I N 00 + n u N 9TH ST o „ 1 z o Ln� �P G Q Q z '� > 1< CIVIC CENTER DR ' 8TH ST o G&E z 7TH ST - LL UN-30 PAO 2_ _ _ --6TH-ST� i —- - - - - - - - w -5TH ST UN-30 ��• ; 3- W --- -- - -------- -- 5TH ST �-- - --SANTAANA�BLVD•- =-------•�--- ..,�-4TH w 3RD Or UN-20 2ND STO o ILU WALNUT ST N�C •.'r Q LL1 Q Ln General ® Commercial 1.0 FAR 35 feet Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and service commercial -Medium ® General 0.5 FAR 35 feet Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and service commercial Commercial ' Professional & Professional and administrative office and supporting service commercial and PAO-2 Administrative 2.0 FAR 3 stories restaurants Office -High Industrial/Flex -Low 1.5 FAR 3 stories Office/industrial flex spaces, small-scale R&D, clean manufacturing, live -work - Institutional 2.0 FAR 2 stories Government facilities, public service facilities, and public institutions - Open Space n/a 2 stories Recreational and green space, commercial open space, public infrastructure, and rail facilities OC Street Car (planned line / station) Note: See Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, for notes. CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Ii �� .1..• FIGURE LU-18 LAND USE MAP 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD w Q = o „ z 0 (D /* ■ CENTRALAVE ADAMS ST Q lip ALTON AVE 1MBINE AVE COWAN MITCHEQ C.� WARNER AVE O� TABLE LU-7. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD High density urban villages consisting of District Center 2.0 FAR or visually stunning and vibrant buildings Medium 90 du/ac 6 stories and spaces with a wide range and mix of residential, live -work, commercial, hotel, and �Q employment -generating uses. Industrial/Flex Office/industrial flex spaces, R&D, clean -Medium 3.0 FAR 10 stories manufacturing, corporate headquarters and campuses. Live -work units are not permitted. General ® Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, service Commercial 1.5 FAR 35 feet commercial. -Medium High ®General 0.5 FAR 35 feet Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, service Commercial commercial. Note: The focus area also includes a nominal amount of land used by railroad operations and mapped with the = Open Space land use designation. See Table LU-9. Notes for All Focus Area Designations, for additional notes. EXHIBIT 5 All materials for Exhibit 5 may be accessed at: https://www.santa-ana.org/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-documents and are also on file and available at the City's Planning and Building Agency. City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 411-131-22 2720 HOTEL TER GC 1.0 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-38 1251 DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-063-41 1231 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-063-42 641 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-06 2620 HOTEL TER GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-10 2601 HOTEL TER GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-12 2650 S GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-15 1351 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-23 2700 HOTEL TER GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-28 2651 HOTEL TER GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-29 2726 S GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-30 1325 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-31 2721 HOTEL TER GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-32 2701 HOTEL TER GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-33 1261 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-34 1251 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-36 1231 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-37 1221 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-39 1261 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-40 1241 E DYER RD GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-132-01 2701 S GRAND AVE IND 0.45 FAR LU change GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-132-02 2721 S GRAND AVE IND 0.45 FAR LU change GC-1.5 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 411-131-11 ROW ROW LU change 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-04 1504 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-07 1530 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-08 1532 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-09 1534 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-10 1536 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-11 1538 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-13 1560 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-14 1570 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-15 1510 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-16 1508 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-17 1506 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-20 1524 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-22 1528 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-23 1524 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-24 1528 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-25 1506 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-26 1508 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-27 1580 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-28 1580 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-29 1581 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-30 1502 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-31 1500 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-32 1516 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-33 1518 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-34 1522 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-36 1528 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-38 1518 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-39 1528 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte Focus Area/Location 016-221-40 1524 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-41 1520 BROOKHOLLOW DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 016-221-42 1540 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-011-01 1801 E CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-011-02 1749 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-011-03 2441 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-011-04 2401 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-011-05 2331 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-012-02 2344 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-012-03 2400 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-012-04 2350 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-021-01 1831 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-021-02 1815 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-021-03 2321 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-021-04 2311 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-021-05 1830 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-022-02 2322 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-022-03 2300 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-10 2501 S PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-11 1824 E CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-17 1840 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-19 1813 E DYER RD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-23 2601 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-24 2621 S DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-25 2511 S DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-26 2525 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-171-05 3050 S DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-171-07 1740 E GARRY AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-171-09 1800 E GARRY AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-02 2961 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-04 2933 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-05 2943 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-06 1761 E GARRY AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-07 2913 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-08 2901 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-09 1750 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-10 2923 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-11 2922 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-12 1800 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-13 1830 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-14 2912 S DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-15 2932 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-16 2938 S DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-17 2960 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-18 2952 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-19 2942 S DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-20 1811 E GARRY AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-21 1801 E GARRY AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-173-22 1751 E GARRY AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-16 2801 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-18 1851 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte Focus Area/Location 430-181-31 2871 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-32 2865 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-33 2851 PULLMAN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-07 2901 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-08 2909 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-11 2921 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-12 3001 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-13 3009 DAIMLER ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-10 1900 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-11 1900 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-031-02 2400 PULLMAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-3 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-21 1951 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.55 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-24 1951 E DYER RD DC 1.7 FAR density/intensity DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-07 1821 E DYER RD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-032-16 1805 E DYER RD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-13 PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-15 1800 E DYER RD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-23 2001 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-24 2801 CATHERINE WAY PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-27 2040 E DYER RD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-181-28 2850 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-182-01 1958 E BLAIR AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-14 3030 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-15 1940 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-16 1900 E DEERE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-20 1901 E ALTON AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-191-21 1921 E ALTON AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-14 2510 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-15 2540 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-17 2530 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-18 2500 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-22 2001 E DYER RD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-221-23 2600 S RED HILL PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-12 1900 E WARNER AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-15 2310 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-17 2001 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-18 2300 RED HILL AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-19 2001 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-20 1951 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-22 1921 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-23 1922 CARNEGIE AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-07 2300 RED HILL AVE DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 430-222-16 2310 S RED HILL AVE DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 55 Fwy/Dyer Road 002-201-20 2800 N MAIN ST DC 2.1 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Adjacent to MainPlace (not in SP) 002-210-34 2700 N MAIN ST DC 2.1 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Adjacent to MainPlace (not in SP) 002-210-40 2700 N MAIN ST DC 2.1 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Adjacent to MainPlace (not in SP) 002-210-44 2701 N MAIN ST DC 2.1 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Adjacent to MainPlace (not in SP) 405-261-17 812 N BAKER ST PAO 1.0 FAR LU change LR-7 Civic Center Specific Dev Plan 405-261-18 808 N BAKER ST PAO 1.0 FAR LU change LR-7 Civic Center Specific Dev Plan 405-261-19 804 N BAKER ST PAO 1.0 FAR LU change LR-7 Civic Center Specific Dev Plan 405-233-19 1111 W CIVIC CENTER DR PAO 1.0 FAR LU change INS Civic Center Specific Dev Plan City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ cus Area/Location 405-233-35 1111 W CIVIC CENTER DR PAO 1.0 FAR LU change INS Civic Center Specific Dev Plan 405-233-36 1112 W CIVIC CENTER DR PAO 1.0 FAR LU change INS Civic Center Specific Dev Plan 415-031-33 4040 W CARRIGE DR IND 0.47 FAR density/intensity IND Add Note GPA 2000-08.47 FAR ex 415-031-37 4140 W GARRY AVE IND 0.47 FAR density/intensity IND Add Note GPA 2000-08.47 FAR ex 400-131-02 1404 N TUSTIN AVE PAO 1.0 FAR LU change LR-7 First St/Tustin Ave 396-211-38 2003 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-39 2011 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-44 1823 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-48 1827 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-49 1821 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-52 1745 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-53 1735 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-54 1729 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-55 1805 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-57 1301 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-211-58 1325 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-162-01 902 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-162-08 1002 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-162-09 1008 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 400-231-01 1300 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 400-231-02 1330 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 400-243-01 1430 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 400-243-02 1618 N LINWOOD AVE GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-02 1104 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-43 1116 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-44 1118 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-58 1108 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-60 1102 E Seventeenth St GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-62 1112 E Seventeenth ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-64 1112 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-66 1120 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-082-33 1124 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-082-39 1124 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-02 2201 N GRAND AVE INS 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-01 2210 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-02 2200 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-01 2231 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-34 2302 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-241-02 2323 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-241-15 2345 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-083-09 1404 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-083-10 1263 E 14TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-083-11 1259 E 14TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-083-12 1255 E 14TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-083-23 1264 E 15TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-083-26 1258 E 15TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-084-03 1258 E 14TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-084-06 1302 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-084-13 1314 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-084-17 1264 E 14TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 400-261-14 1311 E WASHINGTON PL GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 396-191-33 2110 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-34 2114 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-35 2118 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-36 2122 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-37 2126 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-38 2125 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-39 2121 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-40 2117 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-41 2113 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-42 2109 N OBARR PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-191-44 2130 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-03 2139 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-04 2121 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-06 2113 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-07 2109 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-08 2105 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-201-09 2101 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-31 1221 E BEECHWOOD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-32 1220 E SANTA CLARA AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-35 2320 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-36 2330 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-37 2340 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-232-38 1221 E BEECHWOOD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 400-261-15 1311 E WASHINGTON PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-241-02 2323 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-241-15 2345 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-172-17 1125 E 17TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-171-03 2701 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-171-07 2727 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-171-08 2761 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-701-01 2702 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-701-02 2710 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-701-03 2720 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 390-701-04 2740 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-111-58 2530 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-111-59 2510 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-111-60 2520 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-113-10 2428 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-121-24 2650 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-121-27 2626 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-121-28 2610 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-121-29 2602 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-121-31 2630 GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-01 1900* N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-02 1800 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-03 1750 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-04 1227 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-06 1229 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-08 1818 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-161-09 1750 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-172-18 1207 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 396-361-01 2637 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-361-05 2525 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-361-06 2421 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-361-07 2425 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-03 1126 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-04 1136 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-05 1202 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-06 1206 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-15 1602 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-16 1600 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-17 1520 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-48 1500 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-49 1202 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-68 1510 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-70 1244 E 17 TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-71 1248 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-72 1258 E 17TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-73 1268 S Grand ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-071-74 1238 E 17 TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-172-01 125 E 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 396-361-02 1300 E FAIRHAVEN AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-03 1314 E 4TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-04 1320 E 4TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-05 1328 E 4TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-06 1330 E 4TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-07 1332 E 4TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-08 1334 E 4TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-01 315 GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-02 1310 E 4TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-17 309 GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-01 1310 E 3RD ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-16 1315 E 2ND ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-02 1308 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-03 1312 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-04 1314 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-05 1318 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-06 1322 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-07 1324 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-08 1326 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-09 1328 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-14 1315 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-15 1309 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-17 1325 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-18 107 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-456-19 119 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-09 302 N MCCLAY ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-11 1315 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-12 1313 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-384-15 1319 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-02 1318 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-03 1322 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN L Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 398-455-04 1324 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-05 1328 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-06 1334 E 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-07 208 N MCCLAY ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-08 1327 E 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-09 1325 E 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-10 1323 E 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-455-11 1321 E 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-40 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-061-07 625 N GRAND AVE GC 1.15 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-061-01 839 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-061-02 1300 E FRUIT ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-111-24 909 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-111-26 909 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-111-27 910 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-391-19 501 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-391-20 419 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-391-21 415 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 398-391-22 401 N GRAND AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-2 Grand Ave/17th Street 100-261-33 808 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 100-261-36 820 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 100-261-39 808 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 100-631-03 602 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 100-631-04 520 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 100-631-05 510 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 108-253-10 908 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 108-253-11 930 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 108-253-21 830 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 108-253-24 830 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 108-253-37 822 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 108-722-50 1002 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-301-01 411 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-301-02 417 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-301-03 423 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-301-04 427 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-301-05 3711 W CAMILLE ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-301-06 3705 W CAMILLE ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-303-01 501 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-303-03 3712 W CAMILLE ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-303-04 3706 W CAMILLE ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-303-22 3706 W CAMILLE ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-08 313 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-11 225 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-12 217 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-13 217 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-14 205 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-15 125 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-29 329 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-311-34 313 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-351-01 1001 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-351-05 1111 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-351-21 1005 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 144-351-22 3720 W KENT AVE UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-351-23 3710 W KENT AVE UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-351-25 1103 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-351-26 1107 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-361-60 801 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-361-61 901 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-041-06 288 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-041-07 324 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-041-08 324 S HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-051-03 432 S HARBOR UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-051-04 420 S HARBOR UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-051-05 436 S HARBOR UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 188-071-05 520 S HARBOR UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-04 1114 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-05 1108 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-06 1020 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-07 1014 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-08 1000 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-09 960 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-10 914 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-11 902 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-12 3817 W HAZARD AVE UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-15 980 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-011-99 1206 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-043-16 1406 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-043-17 1314 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-13 426 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-14 410 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-15 406 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-16 328 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-17 322 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-18 316 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-051-19 308 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-01 1221 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-02 3708 W WASHINGTON AVE UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-11 3713 W 11TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-12 1109 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-13 1115 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-14 1201 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-101-15 1213 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-02 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-03 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-06 718 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-07 714 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-08 710 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-09 706 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-10 628 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-11 626 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-12 622 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-13 618 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-14 610 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 198-162-15 610 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-16 610 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-17 606 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-18 602 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-19 522 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-20 518 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-24 511 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-25 501 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-26 511 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-27 513 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-28 523 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-29 601 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-30 603 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-31 609 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-32 613 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-35 701 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-36 705 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-37 709 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-42 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-43 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-44 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-45 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-46 816 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-47 501 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-49 722 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-50 715 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-162-51 609 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-01 3710 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-02 414 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-03 408 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-04 408 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-05 326 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-06 322 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-07 318 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-08 314 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-09 310 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-10 306 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-11 302 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-12 226 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-13 222 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-14 218 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-15 214 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-16 212 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-17 206 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-18 202 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-24 201 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-25 205 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-26 209 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-27 213 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-28 217 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-29 225 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 198 182 30 301 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan C 198-182-31 309 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-32 321 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-33 325 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-34 405 N HARBOR UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-35 405 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-182-36 421 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-01 1021 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-02 3714 W 11TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-03 3710 W 11TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-15 3713 W HAZARD AVE UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-16 913 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-17 925 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 198-231-18 1011 N HARBOR BLVD UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - C 144-321-02 101 S GUNTHER ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-321-03 105 S GUNTHER ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-321-04 109 S GUNTHER ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-321-05 113 S GUNTHER ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-321-52 3502 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-321-53 3520 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-322-01 3612 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-322-02 3610 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-341-07 3312 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-551-51 120 KENTON DR UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-161-24 3621 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-161-25 3629 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-161-26 3631 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-171-23 3501 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-171-24 3505 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-171-25 3509 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-171-26 3515 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-171-27 3517 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-172-24 3525 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-172-25 3527 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-172-26 3601 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-172-27 3531 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-01 3622 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-20 114 N BEWLEY ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-25 115 N FIGUEROA ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-44 3638 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-45 3628 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-46 3628 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-01 3502 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-19 3501 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-20 3521 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-38 3512 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-39 3512 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-40 3506 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-241-41 3510 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-242-01 3602 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-242-21 3601 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 10 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 198-242-22 3603 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-242-23 3605 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-242-45 3609 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-01 3314 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-28 3321 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-29 3319 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-60 3332 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-61 3330 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-62 3326 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-63 3324 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-64 3318 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-65 3317 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-66 3331 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-251-70 3332 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-252-01 3400 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-252-29 3405 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-252-34 3425 W 1ST ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-252-64 3424 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-252-65 3420 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-252-66 3418 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-261-24 3230 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-261-25 3226 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-261-26 3200 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-17 3301 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-18 3317 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-19 3319 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-20 3321 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-21 3327 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-22 3401 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-23 3405 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-24 3409 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-25 3417 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-281-26 3425 W 5TH ST UN 3.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-02 702 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-41 762 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-42 718 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-43 718 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-44 724 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-45 800 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-46 770 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-47 770 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-48 770 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 108-253-49 770 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-291-03 629 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-291-05 3639 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-291-09 3721 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-291-10 525 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-291-11 3701 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-291-12 605 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-16 121 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-21 103 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 11 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 144-311-22 3728 W BOLSA AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-27 3626 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-28 3626 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-30 3638 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-31 103 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-311-35 117 S FIGUEROA ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-561-01 3600 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-561-04 3710 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-561-07 751 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-561-08 701 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-561-09 3770 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 144-561-10 3760 W MCFADDEN AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 188-041-01 100 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 188-041-02 120 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 188-041-03 3904 W 1ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 188-041-04 150 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 188-041-05 200 S HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 188-071-22 602 S HARBOR DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-031-05 1602 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-031-07 3822 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-031-08 3802 WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-031-09 1602 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-032-07 1526 N CENTURY BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-032-08 1518 N CENTURY BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-032-09 1510 N CENTURY BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-032-10 1500 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-032-12 1610 N CENTURY BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-07 4201 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-17 228 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-18 124 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-22 208 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-23 200 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-24 100 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-25 100 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-26 100 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-27 100 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-28 3825 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-29 3835 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-30 3839 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-061-31 230 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-02 1401 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-16 1321 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-17 1415 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-18 1421 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-19 1501 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-20 1505 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-21 1513 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-22 1521 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-23 3710 W 17TH ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-24 3720 WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-25 3720 WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 12 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 198-081-26 3710 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-28 3630 WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-31 3636 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-091-52 3500 WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-091-53 3514 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-091-55 3526 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-091-57 3522 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-21 3621 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-22 3625 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-23 3635 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-181-24 3701 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-182-19 114 N FIGUEROA ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-182-20 3709 W 1ST ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-182-21 101 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-182-22 115 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-182-23 121 N HARBOR BLVD DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-01 3412 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-02 3404 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-03 3400 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-04 3300 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-05 1514 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-06 1502 N HARPER ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-07 1501 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-08 1517 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-09 1605 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-191-10 3230 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-01 3118 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-02 3132 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-03 3216 W WESTMINSTER AVE DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-06 14097 N CLINTON ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-07 1506 N CLINTON ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-08 1550 N CLINTON DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-09 1600 N CLINTON ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-201-10 1417 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-211-01 1424 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-211-02 1417 N SUSAN ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 198-081-15 1321 N HARBOR ST DC 0.5 - 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Harbor Corridor Specific Plan - NT 411-152-11 3231 S STANDARD DC 2.0 FAR LU change IND MacArthur Place 411-071-05 1 MACARTHUR PL DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-071-06 2 MACARTHUR PL DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-072-08 201 E MACARTHUR DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-072-09 31 MACARTHUR PL DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-072-11 3401 S MAIN DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-073-01 3 MACARTHUR PL DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-073-06 1 E FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-03 200 E FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-04 1 E FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-05 4 FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-06 2 FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-08 1 FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-09 9 FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 13 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres L Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte cus Area/Location 411-074-10 3 FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-074-11 5 FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-075-01 1 E FIRST AMERICAN WAY DC 2.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 MacArthur Place 411-081-22 201 SANDPOINTE AVE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-081-24 201 SANDPOINTE AVE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-081-28 8 MACARTHUR PL DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-081-30 100 E MACARTHUR BLVD DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-24 7 HUTTON CENTRE DR DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-25 7 HUTTON CENTRE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-29 3 HUTTON CENTRE DR DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-30 4 HUTTON CENTRE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-34 7 HUTTON CENTRE DR DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-38 3 HUTTON CENTRE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-092-42 9 MACARTHUR PL DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-093-03 2 E HUTTON CENTRE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-102-06 5 HUTTON CENTRE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-111-03 3843* S MAIN ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 411-111-08 6 HUTTON CENTRE DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 MacArthur Place South 011-154-01 1406 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-02 123 S MCCLAY ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-03 1422 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-06 1504 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-10 1406 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-11 1610 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-20 206 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-21 210 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-22 214 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-23 220 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-24 224 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-25 310 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-27 322 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-28 1607 E CHESTNUT AVE UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-33 318 S LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-37 1530 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-38 1600 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-39 1600 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-42 1620 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 011-154-43 1440 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-07 1630 E PALM ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-08 1634 E PALM ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-09 1636 E PALM ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-10 130 N LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-11 126 N LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-12 124 N LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-13 120 N LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-14 116 N LYON ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-23 1609 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-25 109 N WRIGHT ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-27 1623 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-421-28 1617 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-431-20 1535 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 14 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ cus Area/Location 398-431-21 1533 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-431-22 1529 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-431-23 1525 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-431-24 1519 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-431-25 1503 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-07 1427 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-08 1421 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-28 1411 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-29 1411 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-30 1405 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-31 111 N MCCLAY ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-441-32 1403 E 1ST ST UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-01 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-02 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-03 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-04 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-05 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-06 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-07 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-11 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 400-062-12 1801 PARK COURT PL UN 0.75 - 1.5 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Metro East Overlay 398-422-01 131 N LYON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-02 127 N LYON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-03 125 N LYON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-04 121 N LYON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-05 117 N LYON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-06 1658 E PALM ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-07 1662 E PALM ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-08 1666 E PALM ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-09 1668 E PALM ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-10 1661 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 398-422-11 1649 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-041-03 2103 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-041-04 600 PARK CENTER DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-041-05 550 PARK CENTER DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-042-04 601 PARK CENTER DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-043-03 2201 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-043-04 501 PARK CENTER DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-043-06 555 PARK CENTER DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-02 1971 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-03 2001 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-05 600 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-06 601 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-09 1901 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-13 540 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-14 515 CABRILLO PARK DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-15 525 CABRILLO PARK DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-051-16 2021 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-052-01 540 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-061-05 1801 E Fourth ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-061-07 1801 E Fourth ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 15 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN I Situs AddresjW Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte cus Area/Location 400-061-08 1801 E Fourth ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-071-02 1851 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-071-03 200 CABRILLO PARK DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-071-07 1750 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-081-03 1900 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-081-04 2000 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-081-05 250 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-081-06 2001 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-081-09 1901 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-082-02 2030 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-082-04 203 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-082-05 2031 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-01 2100 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-16 2201 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-17 2151 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-18 2131 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-19 2101 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-22 2112 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-23 2130 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-251-12 550 N GOLDEN CIRCLE DR DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-181-03 2210 W 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-181-04 2207 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-181-10 2222 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-181-11 2222 W 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-191-01 2114 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-191-02 2020 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-191-03 2020 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-191-04 2110 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-201-05 1900 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-201-13 2010 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-211-02 1818 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-211-03 1814 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-211-06 1800 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-211-07 1820 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-222-01 1660 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-222-04 212 S ELK LN DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 400-091-04 2204 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 402-201-07 1900 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Metro East Overlay 005-151-41 1525 N DURANT ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change MR-15 Midtown Plan 398-552-19 1010 N Broadway PAO 0.5 FAR LU change MR-15 Midtown Plan 398-522-11 313 W WASHINGTON AVE PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO Midtown Plan 005-151-40 1610 N BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change PAO Midtown Plan 398-232-01 720 N SPURGEON ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change PAO Midtown Plan 398-232-04 201 E Civic Center Dr LR7 7 du/ac LU change PAO Midtown Plan 005-151-32 1600 N BROADWAY MR15 15 du/ac LU change PAO Midtown Plan 398-475-01 838 E 1ST ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC Midtown Plan 398-015-04 801 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-021-01 1201 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-021-02 116 E WASHINGTON AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-021-03 120 E WASHINGTON AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-021-04 100 E WASHINGTON AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 16 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN L Situs Addre 0 Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 398-022-01 1117 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-022-10 1107 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-022-11 1111 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-023-01 1011 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-06 712 N BUSH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-07 108 E 8TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-08 701 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-562-01 1200 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-562-02 1104 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-562-06 1104 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-562-10 1010 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-011-01 909 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-562-09 1000 N MAIN ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-01 919 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-02 915 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-03 843 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-04 839 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-07 817 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-08 811 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-09 809 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-10 801 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-14 900 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-15 912 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-25 209 W CIVIC CENTER DR DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-26 818 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-27 825 N BROADWAY DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-29 900 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-184-30 900 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-185-27 902 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-185-29 800 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-185-30 888 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-185-34 921 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 005-185-37 915 N SYCAMORE ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-011-01 909 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-015-01 817 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-015-02 813 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-015-03 809 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-01 717 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-02 715 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-03 711 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-244-01 800 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-244-02 710 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-231-08 701 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 398-015-04 801 N MAIN ST DC 0.5 - 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Midtown Plan 002-161-13 2002 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-162-05 110 W 20TH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-162-30 1910 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-162-31 1906 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-162-32 1914 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-162-33 1902 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-163-30 1802 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 17 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 002-163-31 1810 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-180-45 2333 N BROADWAY DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-180-46 2323 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-03 2034 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-04 2030 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-05 2026 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-06 2022* N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-07 2016 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-08 2014 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-09 2010 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-10 2006 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-11 111 E 20TH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-22 2019 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-25 2015 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-26 2017 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-27 2011 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-28 2025* N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-29 2005 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-30 2033 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-33 2021 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-40 2052 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-41 2056 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-59 2135 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-61 2058 N Bush St DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-63 2119 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-78 2058 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-80 2058 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-113-81 2129 N Main St DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-18 1917 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-19 1909 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-22 1901 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-23 1811 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-24 1809 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-25 1805 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-26 1801 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-27 1727 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-28 1721 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-29 1717 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-33 210 E 20TH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-34 1711 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-35 1715 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-141-41 1905 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-01 112 E 20TH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-02 1910 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-03 1904 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-04 1900 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-05 1820 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-17 1903 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-18 1909 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-19 1905 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-22 1907 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 18 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 003-142-23 1807 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-142-24 1800 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-143-15 1725 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-143-33 1722 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-01 2230 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-02 2222 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-03 2218* N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-04 2212 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-05 2202 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-06 2208 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-07 107 W BUFFALO AVE DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-101-08 119 W BUFFALO AVE DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-01 2132 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-02 2122 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-03 2116 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-04 2112* N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-05 2110 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-06 2106 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-07 2100 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-08 2036 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-09 2032 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 399-102-22 112 W BUFFALO AVE DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 002-162-06 111 W 19TH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-143-04 1714 N BUSH ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-143-16 1719 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-143-31 1701 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Museum District 003-013-18 2677 N MAIN ST DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 North Main St 411-111-07 200 E SANDPOINTE AVE DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 PacTel Office 411-111-09 200 E SANDPOINTE AVE DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 PacTel Office 411-111-10 Entitlements expired as c DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 Pac Tel Office 411-111-11 200 E SANDPOINTE AVE DC 1.5 FAR density/intensity DC-1.5 PacTel Office 410-223-11 1241 W ALTON AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change OS South Bristol Street 140-251-02 2910 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 140-251-03 2860 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 140-251-04 2840 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 140-251-05 2850 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-05 1212 W CENTRAL AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-06 2603 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-08 2701 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-09 1209 HEMLOCK WAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-12 2701 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-13 2621 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-411-01 2801 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-411-05 2911 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-411-06 2929 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-411-20 2823 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-411-21 1216 HEMLOCK WAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-411-22 2909 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-421-01 2523 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-421-03 2445 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-421-04 1155 W CENTRAL AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 19 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 410-421-05 1125 W CENTRAL AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-421-28 2501 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-421-29 2511 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-431-01 2303 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-431-02 2311 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-431-03 2401 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-431-04 1030 W WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-431-05 1120 W WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-431-06 1100 WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-462-18 3001 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-462-19 3041 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-031-01 3000 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-032-01 3200 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-032-02 3200 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-032-03 3220 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-032-04 3220 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-191-01 2302 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-191-03 2320 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-191-04 2402 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-191-05 2430 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-191-06 1331 W CENTRAL AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-201-02 2740 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-201-03 2810 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-201-04 2650 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-201-05 2700 BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-201-07 2610 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-201-08 2640 S BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-401-12 2701 S BRISTOL ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-462-17 3041 S BRISTOL ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 412-031-03 3050 S BRISTOL ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change UN-30 South Bristol Street 410-222-22 3309 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 410-222-24 3313 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 410-222-25 3301 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 410-222-31 3361 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 410-222-32 3329 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 412-141-10 3401 S PLAZA DR DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 412-141-11 3420 BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 412-141-12 3430 BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 412-141-13 3500 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 412-141-22 3300 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 412-141-23 3310 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-2 South Bristol Street 410-301-10 1200 W MACARTHUR BLVD DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-11 3601 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-14 3801 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-15 3811 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-17 3925 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-18 3941 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-21 3929 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-33 3861 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-38 3911 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-39 3821 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 20 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 410-301-40 3611 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-41 3611 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-43 3701 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-12 3730 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-14 3600 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-16 3606 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-17 3610 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-22 3900 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-24 3810 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-25 3820 S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-26 3814* S BRISTOL ST DC 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-10 1561 SUNFLOWER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-20 3951 S PLAZA DR GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-451-01 3811 BEAR ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-451-02 1661 W SUNFLOWER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-451-03 3851 S BEAR ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-451-04 1641 SUNFLOWER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change DC-5 South Bristol Street 410-301-42 3701 S BRISTOL ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 412-131-13 3700 S BRISTOL ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 South Bristol Street 403-151-09 2136 S CYPRESS AVE INS 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 South Main Street 403-151-11 2116 S CYPRESS AVE INS 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 South Main Street 015-090-03 2240 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change INS South Main Street 403-151-04 2133 MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change INS South Main Street 403-151-05 2139 MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change INS South Main Street 010-230-01 210 W CUBBON ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS South Main Street 016-031-13 2327 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-031-32 128 E WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-031-37 124 E WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-031-38 120 E WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-031-51 222 E WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-031-54 2301 S Main St GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-032-04 2423 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-032-12 100 E CENTRAL AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-032-13 125 E CENTRAL AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-032-14 2405 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-032-18 2405 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-032-19 2409 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-041-17 2516 S CYPRESS AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-041-23 2509 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-041-24 2531 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-041-25 2515 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-041-26 2533 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-041-27 2501 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-050-08 2541 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 016-050-09 2547 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-371-01 224 WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-371-02 220 WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-371-03 2302 S BROADWAY AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-372-01 120 W WARNER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-372-06 2406 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-372-10 2300 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 21 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 410-372-11 2330 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-03 2426 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-05 2426 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-06 2500 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-15 2416 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-391-06 2538 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-391-07 2500 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-372-07 2419 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-372-08 2401 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-372-09 2337 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-07 2517 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-08 2511 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-09 2509 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-10 2433 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-11 2431 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-12 2421 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-13 2421 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-382-14 2419 S BROADWAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 410-391-05 130 W CENTRAL AVE IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 South Main Street 010-144-18 618 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-144-21 616 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-144-22 602 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-144-23 610 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-144-25 606 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-144-29 630 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-144-30 620 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-12 724 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-13 107 W RICHLAND ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-15 710 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-16 714 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-17 702 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-18 726 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-154-19 704 MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-214-11 812 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-214-13 818 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-214-17 816 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-214-18 822 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-214-27 806 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-214-28 830 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-16 910 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-17 902 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-18 920 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-19 906 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-20 930 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-21 914 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-224-22 926 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-11 1026 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-12 1030 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-13 1022 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-23 731 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-26 725 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 22 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 011-041-27 721 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-28 809 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-29 803 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-30 807 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-31 701 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-32 112 E BISHOP ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-041-34 709 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-15 107 E CUBBON ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-16 111 E CUBBON ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-21 827 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-34 925 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-36 933 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-44 921 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-46 917 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-47 815 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-48 819 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-49 827 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-51 905 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-21 1123 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-43 1111 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-44 1109 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-50 1001 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-51 1131 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-58 1117 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-59 1005 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-69 1015 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-70 1105 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-15 1210 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-16 1216 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-20 1230 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-23 1242 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-24 1204 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-25 1234 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-154-29 1218 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-164-18 1306 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-164-19 1310 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-02 1402 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-03 1416 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-08 1401 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-13 1419 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-14 1423 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-21 1415 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-22 1440 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-23 1427 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-27 1424 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-173-28 1444 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-08 1519 S BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-09 1527 S BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-10 1603 S BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-11 1607 S BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-16 1514 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 23 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 013-183-17 1518 S SYCAMORE7S11T GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-18 1520 S SYCAMORE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-19 1524 S SYCAMORE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-20 1606 S SYCAMORE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-21 1608 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-28 1501 S BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-29 208 W EDINGER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-30 202 W EDINGER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-31 212 W EDINGER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-32 205 W POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-183-33 1515 S BROADWAY GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-02 1509 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-04 155 W POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-08 1508 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-09 1516 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-10 1522 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-11 1606 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-12 1614 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-13 1622 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-14 1626 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-15 1517 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-17 115 W POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-19 1502 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-20 SEC SYCAMORE/EDINGER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-21 1607 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-184-23 1627 S SYCAMORE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-22 1221 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-23 1229 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-24 1231 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-25 1237 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-30 1235 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-31 1241 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-32 1247 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-34 1201 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-011-37 1211 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-25 1345 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-26 1303 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-27 1307 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-28 1311 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-29 1321 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-30 1325 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-31 1329 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-021-35 1333 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-36 1417 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-38 1445 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-39 1403 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-40 1407 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-43 1421 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-44 1427 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-57 1451 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-58 1473 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 24 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 014-032-59 1415 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 014-032-60 1465 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-050-09 1812 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-050-10 1820 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-050-11 1808 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-08 1914 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-09 1922 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-17 1926 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-18 1906 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-07 2002 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-10 2014 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-11 2020 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-12 2022 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-15 2012 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-16 2010 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-068-17 2008 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-14 2026 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-17 2036 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-18 2040 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-24 2058 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-25 2064 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-26 2064 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-28 2054 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-29 2050 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-074-30 2030 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-084-27 2130 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-084-38 2116 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-084-39 2120 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-084-40 2140 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-084-41 2102 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-090-19 2222 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-090-21 2202 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-277-09 220 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-04 220 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-05 210 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-06 202 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-288-06 320 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-288-07 316 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-288-08 312 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-288-09 300 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-12 520 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-13 518 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-14 516 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-15 510 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-16 502 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-17 420 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-18 418 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-19 416 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-20 408 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-512-01 104 E 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-512-02 110 E 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 25 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 398-512-03 111 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-512-04 119 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-512-05 127 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-512-06 124 S CYPRESS AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-512-07 120 E 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-514-05 122 S ORANGE AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-514-06 116 S ORANGE AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-514-07 224 E 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-514-08 210 E 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-01 2201 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-02 2209 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-03 2211 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-04 2223 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-05 2225 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-06 2231 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-07 2239 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-141-08 2245 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-151-01 2101 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-08 1959 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-09 1947 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-10 1933 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-11 1925 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-12 1919 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-18 2071 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-19 2059 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-20 2055 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-21 2049 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-22 2045 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-23 2041 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-24 2037 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-25 2035 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-26 2033 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-27 2025 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-28 2017 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-31 2009 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-01 1701 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-03 124 E POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-04 125 E BERKELEY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-08 1717 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-09 1707 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-10 1705 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-181-13 120 E POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-01 1801 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-06 1812 S CYPRESS AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-07 119 E OCCIDENTAL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-10 107 E OCCIDENTAL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-11 1815 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-186-01 1901 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-186-02 1911 MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-191-01 1501 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-191-02 112 E EDINGER AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 26 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address I Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 403-191-09 111 E STANFORD ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-191-11 1511 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-191-12 1515 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-01 1601 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-02 112 E STANFORD ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-09 111 E POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-10 105 E POMONA ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-11 1617 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-12 1611 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-197-13 1603 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-01 401 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-02 110 E CHESTNUT AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-10 100 E MYRTLE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-11 107 E MYRTLE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-12 105 E MYRTLE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-13 417 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-14 411 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-041-15 409 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-044-08 109 CAMILLE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-044-09 519 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-044-10 515 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-01 203 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-02 209 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-03 215 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-04 221 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-10 112 E WALNUT ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-096-01 108 E PINE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-096-02 305 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-096-03 311 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-096-04 315 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-096-05 319 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-01 601 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-03 611 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-04 615 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-10 607 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-12 609 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-13 112 E CAMILLE ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-05 631 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-164-16 1322 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 013-164-17 1344 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-01 2001 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-044-01 505 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-294-24 406 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-53 114 E CUBBON ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-16 1010 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-04 1918 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-01 120 W 1ST ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-02 114 W 1ST ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-03 110 W 1ST ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-04 100 S MAIN ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-05 117 S MAIN ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 27 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN k Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 398-278-06 114 S MAIN ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-07 120 S MAIN ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-278-08 123 S MAIN ST DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-05 915 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-06 919 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-07 117 W MCFADDEN AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 010-234-16 1010 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-53 114 E CUBBON ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-01 1901 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-02 1905 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-03 1909 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-04 1918 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-14 1917 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 015-064-16 1921 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-283-01 201 S BROADWAY LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-283-02 211 S BROADWAY LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-283-16 200 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-01 120 W WALNUT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-02 200 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-03 200 S SYCAMORE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-07 111 E SAINT ANDREW PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-01 2001 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-17 101 E SAINT GERTRUDE PL LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-02 114 E BERKELEY ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-03 116 E BERKELEY ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-04 122 E BERKELEY ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-05 126 E BERKELEY ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-08 115 E OCCIDENTAL ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-185-09 111 E OCCIDENTAL ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-044-01 505 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-05 222 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-06 220 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-091-07 210 CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-01 208 E WALNUT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-02 203 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-03 207 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-04 209 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-05 215 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-06 219 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-07 221 S CYPRESS AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-08 213 E PINE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-09 207 ORANGE AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-10 207 ORANGE AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-11 216 ORANGE AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-12 207 ORANGE AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-13 202 E WALNUT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-092-14 214 E WALNUT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 404-101-05 631 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 398-284-05 210 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-186-02 1911 MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-186-01 1901 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 28 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 403-163-12 1919 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-11 1925 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-10 1933 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-163-09 1947 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-28 2017 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 403-164-31 2009 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-21 827 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-51 905 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-051-46 917 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 011-061-69 1015 S MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 South Main Street 041-213-04 555 E MEMORY LN DC 1.27 FAR density/intensity DC-1 Town and Country Manor 398-461-06 117 N STANDARD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-473-08 901 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-473-09 907 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-491-21 701 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-491-26 521 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-491-27 521 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-491-32 719 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-491-34 515 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-491-35 607 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-492-11 110 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-492-12 829 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-492-13 823 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-492-14 823 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-492-18 801 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-473-12 936 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-473-10 938 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-01 1206 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-02 1212 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-03 1222 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-04 1225 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-05 1221 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-06 1219 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-07 1215 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-08 1211 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-09 1207 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-385-10 1203 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-386-01 1102 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-386-02 1108 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-386-03 1110 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-386-04 1114 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-386-05 1124 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-453-05 1214 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-453-06 202 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-453-07 1215 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-454-08 1211 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-454-09 1205 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-454-10 1201 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-454-14 1221 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-454-15 1221 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-40 Transit Zoning Code - CDR 398-234-01 631 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 29 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 398-234-04 113 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-234-06 614 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-234-07 601 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-235-01 615 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-235-02 620 N SPURGEON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-235-03 600 N SPURGEON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-235-04 608 N SPURGEON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-235-05 608 N SPURGEON DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-243-01 615 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-243-02 600 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-243-04 618 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-252-04 518 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-252-05 301 W 5TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-253-06 200 W SANTA ANA BLVD DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-254-01 515 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-254-02 505 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-254-11 520 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-255-19 301 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-255-20 305 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-255-21 309 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-255-30 302 W 5TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-01 415 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-02 409 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-03 223 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-04 221 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-05 219 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-06 217 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-07 215 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-08 209 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-09 203 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-10 213 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-257-11 416 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-01 120 W 5TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-02 415 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-03 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-04 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-05 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-08 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-09 410 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-10 410 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-11 410 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-12 420 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-258-13 109 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-01 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-02 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-03 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-04 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-05 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-06 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-07 117 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-09 308 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 30 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 398-264-10 300 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-13 201 W 3RD DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-14 308 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-15 202 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-16 214 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-17 220 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-264-18 325 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-01 227 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-02 217 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-03 225 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-04 207 W 2ND ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-05 207 W 2ND ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-06 207 W 2ND ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-267-09 214 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-273-01 117 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-273-02 107 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-273-03 102 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-273-04 222 W 2ND ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-274-01 117 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-274-02 115 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-274-03 105 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-274-04 112 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-01 517 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-02 515 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-03 503 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-04 501 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-05 117 E 5TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-06 119 E 5TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-07 510 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-321-08 520 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-322-01 200 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-323-08 300 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-325-01 450 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-326-08 325 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-326-10 300 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-326-11 200 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-327-01 204 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-327-06 217-* E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-327-07 217 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-327-08 217 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-327-09 201 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-328-01 421 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-328-02 111 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-01 102 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-02 104 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-03 106 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-04 108 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-05 112 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-06 114 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-07 116 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-08 118 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 31 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 398-501-09 120 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-10 314 N BUSH DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-11 308 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-12 302 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-13 301 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-501-14 309 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-503-01 200-* E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-503-02 206-* E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-503-03 216 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-503-10 216-* E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-04 310 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-07 316 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-08 318 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-09 320 N FRENCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-10 302 N FRENCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-11 302 N FRENCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-12 309 E 3RD ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-13 301 N SPURGEON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-15 312-* E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-505-16 300 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-507-08 400 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-507-11 450 E 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-511-09 111 S MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-513-01 202 E 2ND ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-513-02 116 N SPURGEON ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-513-04 211 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-513-06 201 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-513-07 219 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-516-19 301 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-516-20 401 E 1ST ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-01 324 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-02 318 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-03 312 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-04 310 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-05 302 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-06 306 BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-07 306 BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-08 315 3RD ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-09 329 W BIRCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-591-10 313 BIRCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-592-07 204 N BROADWAY DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-592-08 116 N BROADWAY ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-592-09 322 W 3RD St DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-01 450 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-02 414 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-03 412 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-04 410 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-05 406 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-06 402 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-07 310 N BIRCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-593-08 310 N BIRCH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 32 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 398-601-02 200 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-601-03 200 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-601-04 201 N SYCAMORE ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-602-02 217 N MAIN ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-602-03 220 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-602-04 210 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-602-07 200 N BUSH ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-603-02 210 E 3RD ST DC 3.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-01 402 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-02 406 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-03 412 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-08 409 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-09 405 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-10 501 N FRENCH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-324-12 510 N MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-252-07 400 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-3 Transit Zoning Code - DT & UC 398-351-04 1000 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 5.0 FAR LU change INS Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-093-02 1024 FULLER ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-081-06 1107 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5-1.8FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-093-01 1102 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5-1.8FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-093-03 1024 N FULLER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-093-04 1022 FULLER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-093-05 1022 FULLER UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-093-06 1020 FULLER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-093-07 1016 FULLER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-093-08 1012 FULLER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-093-13 1006 N FULLER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code -TV 398-092-02 1013 N FULLER ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-092-08 1037 FULLER ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-092-09 1045 FULLER ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-092-10 1029 FULLER ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-092-11 1021 FULLER ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-092-13 1126 E WASHINGTON AVE DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-092-14 1126 E WASHINGTON AVE DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-02 940 N GRAND AVE DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-03 930 N GRAND AVE DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-04 1205 E STAFFORD ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-05 1201 E STAFFORD ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-06 1202 E STAFFORD ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-07 1206 E STAFFORD ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-08 1210 E STAFFORD ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-09 1214 E STAFFORD ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-13 1215 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-14 902 N GRAND AVE DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-101-15 1207 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-203-02 1000 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-204-04 1000 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-207-01 1111 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-208-01 1143 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-351-07 1000 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-361-01 1140 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 33 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 398-361-07 1102 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-374-21 1160 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-351-08 1000 E SANTA ANA BLVD DC 90 du/ac, 1.0 FAR density/intensity DC-5 Transit Zoning Code - TV 398-255-31 411 W 4TH ST DC 3.0 FAR LU change INS Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-315-11 919 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-01 901 E 5TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-02 910 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-05 921 E 5TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-06 913 E 5TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-07 518 N POINSETTIA ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-08 920 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-341-09 920 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-01 1000 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-03 1000 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-18 1039 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-343-01 902 E 5TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-343-02 417 N GARFIELD ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-343-09 932 E 5TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-352-06 610 N SANTIAGO ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-352-07 620 N SANTIAGO ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-361-02 1061 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-361-03 1051 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-361-12 606 N TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-362-01 530 TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-362-02 510 TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-362-03 508 TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-362-04 506 TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-362-05 420 TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-373-05 1110 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-373-06 1102 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-374-19 1105 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-374-20 1101 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-01 531 TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-02 415 N TERMINAL ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-03 1051 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-04 1064 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-06 416 N SANTA FE ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-07 414 N SANTA FE ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-08 1020 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-09 941 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-10 941 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-11 941 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-343-03 906 E 5TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-382-01 1111 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-12 1045 E 4TH ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-361-01 1140 E FRUIT ST DC 5.0 FAR LU change UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-05 1020 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-15 1020 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-342-15 1029 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-381-05 1064 E 6TH ST DC 5.0 FAR density/intensity UN-50 Transit Zoning Code - UC 398-181-06 841 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 34 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-181-09 1328 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-181-10 1330 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-181-11 1332 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-181-14 841 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-181-17 1338 N CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-181-18 1340 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-05 1321 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-06 1317 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-07 1315 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-08 1313 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-09 901 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-10 905 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-11 909 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-12 915 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-13 915 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-14 900 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-15 1312 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-16 1318 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-17 1322 N LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-21 1326 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-22 1325 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-25 1331 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-26 1329 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-182-28 1337 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-183-07 1019 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-183-13 1313 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-183-14 1011 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-183-17 1312 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-183-18 1310 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-183-19 1306 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-06 845 E CIVIC CENTER DR UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-07 1018 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-08 1020 N CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-09 1024 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-10 1030 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-11 1000 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-12 1038 N CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-13 826 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-14 830 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-15 800 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-16 836 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-192-17 838 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-01 902 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-02 1000 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-03 1039 N CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-04 1037 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-05 1033 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-06 1027 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-07 1023 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-08 1019 CUSTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-10 903 STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 35 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-193-11 907 STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-12 1002 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-13 1006 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-15 1016 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-16 1018 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-17 1022 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-18 1026 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-19 1030 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-20 1034 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-21 1038 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-22 1042 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-23 912 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-24 916 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-25 920 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-193-26 1012 N LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-01 1004 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-02 1006 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-03 1008 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-04 1010 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-05 1041 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-06 1035 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-07 1035 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-08 1027 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-09 1021 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-10 1017 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-11 1015 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-12 1001 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-14 1008 LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-15 1018 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-16 1022 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-17 1024 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-18 1026 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-19 1030 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-20 1032 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-21 1042 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-22 1014 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-194-23 1002 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-02 904 STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-03 906 STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-04 908 E STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-05 912 E STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-06 926 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-07 924 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-08 922 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-202-09 920 N LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-01 935 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-02 929 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-03 925 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-04 923 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-05 917 LOGAN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-06 920 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 36 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-205-07 922 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-08 926 N LINCOLN AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-205-09 1016 STAFFORD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-13 717 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-14 713 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-15 711 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-16 705 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-17 701 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-18 623 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-19 619 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-20 615 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-25 604 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-481-27 608 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-02 518 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-03 522 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-04 602 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-05 606 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-06 610 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-07 614 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-08 618 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-09 624 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-10 626 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-11 710 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-12 712 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-13 714 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-14 720 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-15 208 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-16 721 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-17 719 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-18 709 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-19 705 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-20 701 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-21 619 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-22 615 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-23 609 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-24 607 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-25 605 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-26 601 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-27 519 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-28 515 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-29 511 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-482-32 430 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-08 831 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-09 825 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-10 823 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-13 815 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-14 809 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-15 805 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-16 801 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-483-17 819 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-01 802 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 37 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN L Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-484-02 213 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-03 810 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-04 814 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-06 829 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-07 825 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-08 821 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-09 819 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-10 815 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-484-11 801 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-04 514 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-05 518 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-06 606 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-07 608 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-08 610 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-09 612 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-10 614 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-11 618 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-12 620 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-13 702 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-14 706 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-15 710 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-16 714 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-17 720 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-39 510 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-491-40 510 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-01 802 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-02 808 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-03 810 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-04 814 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-05 818 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-06 820 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-07 824 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-08 826 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-09 830 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-492-10 112 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 Transit Zoning Code - UN-1 398-315-04 901 E 6TH ST UN 5.0 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-033-05 1110 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-034-07 920 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-035-01 1115 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-035-02 1113 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-035-03 1105 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-043-09 715 CIVIC CENTER DR UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-043-10 717 CIVIC CENTER DR UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-043-13 820 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-043-14 830 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-043-15 810 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-150-02 627 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-151-08 1327 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-151-09 1300 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-151-10 615 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-151-11 611 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 38 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address L- Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-152-16 627 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-181-16 1315 N SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-02 628 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-03 1016 N SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-04 827 E CIVIC CENTER DR UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-05 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-06 921 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-07 911 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-191-08 811 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-192-01 800 E WASHINGTON AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-192-02 1031 N SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-192-03 1031 SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-192-04 1025 N SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-192-05 1001 N SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-201-11 901 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-202-01 923 N SANTIAGO ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-236-01 621 N SPURGEON ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-236-02 621 N SPURGEON ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-236-03 708 N FRENCH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-236-04 609 N SPURGEON ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-237-01 625 N FRENCH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-237-02 615 N FRENCH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-237-03 714 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-237-04 710 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-237-05 401 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-01 731 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-02 725 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-03 719 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-04 715 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-05 711 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-06 501 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-07 505 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-08 511 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-09 702 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-10 708 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-11 710 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-238-12 408 CIVIC CENTER DR UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-01 729 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-02 727 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-03 717 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-04 715 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-05 709 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-08 615 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-09 619 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-10 623 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-11 625 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-12 710 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-13 714 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-16 724 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-17 730 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-301-20 718 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 39 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-301-21 601 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-01 608 E CIVIC CENTER DR UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-02 717 LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-08 729 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-10 724 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-11 730 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-14 711 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-302-15 703 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-01 725 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-02 717 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-03 711 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-04 801 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-05 807 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-06 809 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-07 809 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-08 715 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-09 817 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-10 724 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-303-11 730 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-311-05 607 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-311-21 621 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-312-10 811 BROWN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-312-11 602 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-312-21 702 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-312-22 610 GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-312-23 601 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-312-24 618 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-313-03 812 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-313-06 611 N GARFIELD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-313-11 624 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-313-16 636 POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-313-17 638 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-313-20 804 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-315-01 902 BROWN ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-315-09 620 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-315-10 620 N POINSETTIA ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-315-12 901 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-01 502 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-02 506 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-03 510 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-04 514 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-05 520 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-06 519 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-07 515 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-08 509 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-09 507 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-330-10 501 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-331-01 601 MORTIMER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-331-02 512 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-331-05 515 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-331-06 516 SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 40 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN L Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-332-04 520 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-332-05 519 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-332-06 515 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-332-10 502 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-332-11 505 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-333-02 610 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-333-07 609 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-333-10 512 N PORTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-333-11 601 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-333-12 621 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-01 702 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-02 706 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-03 710 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-04 714 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-05 720 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-06 713 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-334-07 701 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-01 702 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-02 708 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-03 712 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-04 716 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-05 416 N LACY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-06 719 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-07 713 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-11 701 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-337-12 701 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-338-01 602 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-338-06 615 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-338-07 609 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-338-08 601 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-338-09 409 N MINTER ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-338-11 606 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-08 1020 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-09 1020 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-10 1020 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-11 941 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-12 1035 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-343-03 906 E 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-343-07 929 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-343-08 903 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-352-10 920 E SANTA ANA BLVD UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-01 742 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-02 738 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-03 734 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-04 730 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-05 718 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-06 714 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-07 710 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-08 702 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-09 626 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-10 624 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 41 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-371-11 620 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-12 616 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-14 600 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-15 601 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-16 609 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-17 615 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-18 617 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-19 621 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-20 623 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-21 629 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-22 703 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-23 707 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-24 711 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-25 715 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-26 717 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-27 721 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-28 725 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-29 731 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-30 735 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-31 739 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-32 1214 E FRUIT ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-33 610 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-371-34 606 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-01 516 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-02 510 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-03 508 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-04 511 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-05 515 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-06 519 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-372-07 1202 E 6TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-373-01 528 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-373-02 524 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-373-07 514 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-01 742 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-02 740 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-03 736 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-04 732 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-05 728 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-06 724 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-07 720 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-08 716 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-09 710 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-10 706 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-11 704 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-12 628 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-13 626 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-14 622 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-15 618 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-16 610 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-17 606 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-374-18 604 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 42 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address LPlan Current General Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-381-08 412 N SANTA FE ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-381-09 412 N SANTA FE ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-381-10 1061 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-381-11 1055 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-381-12 1051 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-381-13 1051 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-382-01 1111 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-382-02 508 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-382-03 506 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-382-04 420 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-382-05 416 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-01 507 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-02 501 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-03 419 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-04 411 N EASTWOOD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-05 1201 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-08 404 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-09 416 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-10 420 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-11 424 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-12 502 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-383-13 400 N GRAND AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-386-06 1121 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-386-07 1119 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-386-08 1115 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-386-09 1111 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-386-10 1105 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-451-01 1108 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-451-04 1116 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-451-05 1122 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-451-06 212 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-451-07 208 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-451-08 202 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-01 1102 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-02 1108 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-03 1116 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-04 1118 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-05 120 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-06 108 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-07 104 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-452-08 1102 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-01 1202 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-02 1202 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-03 1208 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-04 1210 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-08 1209 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-09 1207 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-10 209 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-453-11 1205 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-454-01 117 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-454-02 111 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 43 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ Focus Area/Location 398-454-03 1208 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-454-11 107 N HATHAWAY ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-461-03 1002 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-461-07 1044 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-461-18 1030 E 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-461-19 1038 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-01 1026 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-02 1022 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-03 1008 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-04 922 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-05 924 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-06 927 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-471-07 900 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-472-01 1000 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-472-02 1000 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-472-03 928 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-472-04 905 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-472-05 910 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-472-06 905 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-473-04 914 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-473-06 902 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-473-10 938 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-473-12 936 E 2ND ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-08 610 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-09 612 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-10 616 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-11 710 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-12 716 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-24 604 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-481-26 608 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-01 802 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-02 806 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-03 800 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-04 818 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-05 820 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-06 822 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-483-07 832 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-484-05 818 E 3RD ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-18 1039 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-362-05 420 TERMINAL ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-381-03 1055 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-342-15 1029 E 4TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 398-461-06 117 N STANDARD AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 Transit Zoning Code - UN-2 198-101-03 3704 W WASHINGTON AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-04 1222 N BEWLEY ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-05 1218 N BEWLEY ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-07 1122 N BEWLEY ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-08 1114 N BEWLEY ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-09 1102 N BEWLEY ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-10 3625 W 11TH ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 198-101-17 1210 N BEWLEY ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 West Santa Ana Boulevard 44 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 198-211-04 3424 W WASHINGTON AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-10 2901 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change MR-15 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-12 2767 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change MR-15 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-13 2767 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change MR-15 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-01 1922 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-02 1918 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-03 1914 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-04 1912 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-05 1906 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-06 1904 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-07 209 N TOWNSEND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-08 1921 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-09 1917 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-10 1915 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-11 1911 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-12 1907 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-161-13 1901 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-162-01 1924 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-162-02 1918 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-162-03 1916 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-162-04 1912 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-162-05 1906 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-162-06 1904 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-02 1826 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-03 1822 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-04 1818 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-05 1814 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-07 1837 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-08 1831 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-10 1819 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-11 1815 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-12 1809 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-13 1805 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-14 1801 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-15 1821 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-16 1825 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-17 1832 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-18 1834 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-19 1810 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-21 1802 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-163-22 1806 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-01 1832 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-02 1826 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-03 1824 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-04 1820 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-05 1816 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-06 1810 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-07 1808 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-164-08 1802 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-02 1724 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-03 1720 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 45 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 007-201-04 1718 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-06 1706 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-07 1702 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-14 110 N WESTERN AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-17 1716 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-18 1712 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-28 1732 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-201-29 1728 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-01 271 N RAITT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-02 1726 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-03 1722 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-04 1722 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-05 1716 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-06 1716 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-07 1706 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-08 1702 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-09 1701 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-10 1705 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-11 1709 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-12 1715 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-13 1717 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-14 1721 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-176-15 1727 W 2ND ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change CR West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-131-33 1249 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change OS West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-19 1225 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-20 1217 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-21 1213 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-22 1211 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-23 1207 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-24 1201 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-084-11 1139 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-084-12 1131 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-084-13 1129 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-084-14 1127 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-084-26 1107 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-07 1222 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-08 1218 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-09 1214 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-10 1210 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-11 1206 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-12 1202 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-093-01 1140 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-093-05 1120 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-093-08 1106 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-093-09 1102 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-093-23 1128 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-093-24 1114 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-161-01 1076 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-161-02 1070 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-161-08 1042 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-161-39 1030 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 46 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres I Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 405-161-40 1040 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-161-41 1054 E SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-084-24 1111 E SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR density/intensity PAO-2 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-19 2025 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-21 2015 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-28 2201 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-29 2209 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR density/intensity GC-1 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-21 2317 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-22 2313 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-23 2301 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-24 2301 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-25 2233 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-26 2217 W 1ST ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-29 2415 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-100-02 1908 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-100-04 1922 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-100-05 2002 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-100-06 1900 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-100-07 1804 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-01 2308 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-02 2304 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-03 2224 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-04 2222 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-06 2210 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-07 2204 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-10 2120 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-11 2110 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-12 2114 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-13 2106 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-14 2102 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-15 2026 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-16 2022 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-17 2020 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-20 2216 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-110-21 2202 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-24 2400 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-25 2401 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-26 2350 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-27 2351 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-28 2330 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-32 2231 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-33 2221 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-34 2220 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-35 2230 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-36 2300 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-37 2310 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-38 321 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-39 311 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-40 301 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-41 312 N TOWNSEND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-43 2341 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 47 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 007-120-44 2331 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-45 2311 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-46 2321 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-47 2301 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-49 302 N TOWNSEND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-50 308 N TOWNSEND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-52 302 N TOWNSEND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-120-53 304 N TOWNSEND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-01 2430 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-02 2410 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-03 411 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-04 410 NANTUCKET PL IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-05 401 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-06 400 NANTUCKET PL IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-07 321 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-08 301 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-09 2430 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-10 2420 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-11 2400 CAPE COD WAY IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-121-12 300 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-04 302 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-11 2602 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-24 2520 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-26 2518 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-29 408 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-31 406 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-35 412 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-42 402 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-45 2521 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-46 2513 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-47 2603 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-48 2521 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-49 2649 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-50 2655 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-51 2639 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-56 2505 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-66 419 N FAIRVIEW ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-67 401 N FAIRVIEW ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-76 308 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-77 404 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-78 280 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-79 212 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-80 124 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-141-82 201 N Fairview St IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-142-01 2702 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-08 200 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-09 2323 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-10 216 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-15 2431 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-17 201 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-18 2421 W 3RD ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 48 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ inte ' Focus Area/Location 007-361-19 2420 W 3RD ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-20 2411 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-21 2421 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-361-22 121 N SULLIVAN ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-03 2309 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-06 2233 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-09 2221 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-10 2217 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-11 2218 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-12 2222 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-13 2226 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-20 201 N CLARA ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-30 2305 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-31 2310 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-32 2302 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-33 2225 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-34 2230 W 2ND ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-362-35 2317 W 2ND St IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-05 2808 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-06 2812 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-07 2818 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-14 2828 W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-222-15 2829 W 1ST ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-241-01 2501* W 5TH ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-241-03 501 N FAIRVIEW ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-241-04 601 N FAIRVIEW ST IND 0.45 FAR LU change FLEX-1.5 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-02 802 N FAIRVIEW ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-313-15 2237 W 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-313-16 2223 W 5TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-04 2334 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-05 2328 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-06 2324 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-07 2318 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-09 2304 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-16 2325 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-17 2317 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-19 2310 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-23 2338 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-24 2334 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-25 2329 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-30 2301 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-31 2314 W 6TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-32 2301 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-022-33 2315 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-01 1924 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-02 1920 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-03 1918 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-04 1910 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-05 1906 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-06 1902 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-07 1921 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 49 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 007-101-08 1919 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-10 1909 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-11 1905 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-12 1903 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-13 1913 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-101-14 1915 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-01 1836 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-02 1830 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-03 1824 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-04 1822 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-05 1800 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-06 1812 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-07 1802 W 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-08 1839 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-09 1829 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-10 1825 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-14 1815 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-15 1811 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-16 1807 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-17 1801 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-102-19 1817 W 3RD St LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-351-01 717 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-352-46 711 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-03 1730 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-04 1728 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-05 1724 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-06 1722 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-07 1710 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-08 1706 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-09 1702 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-10 1701 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-11 1707 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-12 1709 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-13 1717 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-14 1721 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-15 1725 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-16 1727 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-19 1731 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-052-20 1735 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-02 1720 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-03 1714 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-04 1710 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-05 1706 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-06 1702 E 4TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-07 1701 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-08 1705 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-09 1709 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-171-10 301 N RAITT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-01 730 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-02 802 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-03 720 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 50 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addres Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 405-211-04 804 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-07 2502 W 9TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-08 2506 W 9TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-09 2510 W 9TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-10 2510 W 9TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-11 2520 W 9TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-211-36 804 N FAIRVIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-20 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-212-14 800 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-212-15 800 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-212-16 888 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-212-17 800 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-19 500 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-24 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-26 520 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-27 311 N VAN NESS ST PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-28 520 W 4TH ST PAO 1.0 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-064-05 1310 W 5TH ST INS 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-064-14 1314 W 5TH ST INS 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-064-17 410 N BRISTOL ST INS 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-16 1235 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-17 1233 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-18 1231 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-03 1240 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-04 1236 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-05 1230 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-06 1226 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-22 520 W SANTA ANA BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 398-221-23 520 W SANTA AN BLVD PAO 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-15 1305 W 3RD ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-25 1306 W SANTA ANA BLVD GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-01 415 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-02 415 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-14 1243 W SANTA ANA BLVD GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-15 1241 W SANTA ANA BLVD GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-29 1247 W SANTA ANA BLVD GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-01 315 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-02 1244 W SANTA ANA BLVD GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-14 1247 W 3RD ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-15 1239 W 3RD ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-064-06 418 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 405-064-17 410 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-01 1336 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-02 1332 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-03 1326 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-04 1322 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-05 1318 W SANTA ANA BLVD LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-10 305 N HESPERIAN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-12 1323 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-13 1319 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-14 1315 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 007-183-19 1331 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 51 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 007-183-20 1325 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-03 1236 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-04 1234 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-082-05 1232 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-16 1237 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-17 1233 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-18 1229 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 008-091-19 1225 W 3RD ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change UN-30 West Santa Ana Boulevard 410-301-28 1000 W MACARTHUR BLVD DC 1.0 FAR LU change LR-7 010-232-18 902 S BROADWAY INS 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 010-232-22 917 S BIRCH ST INS 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 396-261-26 2101 E SANTA CLARA AVE INS 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 396-261-56 2414 N TUSTIN AVE INS/OS/LR-7 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 396-261-38 2109 E SANTA CLARA AVE INS/GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 016-045-19 2533 ORANGE AVE OS 0.2 FAR LU change LR-7 396-261-56 2414 N TUSTIN AVE OS 0.2 FAR LU change LR-7 405-261-20 801 N LOUISE ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-261-21 807 N LOUISE ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-261-22 811 N LOUISE ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-312-02 1617 N ROSEWOOD AVE PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-321-01 1010 W 17TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-082-02 1148 W CIVIC CENTER DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-082-25 1136 W CIVIC CENTER DR PAO 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 396-261-37 2360 N TUSTIN AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 396-261-38 2109 E SANTA CLARA AVE GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-09 526 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-10 522 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-11 518 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-12 514 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-13 510 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-14 506 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-391-27 530 N MCCLAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 405-081-23 611 N BRISTOL ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 398-496-04 113 S HALLADAY ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 410-311-02 2970 S MAIN ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change LR-7 414-012-01 2732 W ORION AVE IND 0.45 FAR LU change LR-7 410-111-02 651 W SUNFLOWER AVE UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change LR-7 407-107-19 3007 W EDINGER AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 407-107-20 3013 W EDINGER AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 407-107-22 3019 W EDINGER AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 407-107-29 3019 W EDINGER AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 407-107-31 3025 W EDINGER AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 407-107-32 3109 W EDINGER AVE MR15 15 du/ac LU change LR-7 412-423-01 1702 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-02 1706 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-03 1710 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-04 1714 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-05 1718 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-06 1722 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-07 1802 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 412-423-08 1806 W ADAMS ST LU change LR-7 52 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Addre! I Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ igtensity Focus Area/Location 108-741-03 4918 W 1ST ST GC/LMR11 0.5 FAR/11 du/ac LU change LMR-11 108-741-04 4906 W 1ST ST GC/LMR11 0.5 FAR/11 du/ac LU change LMR-11 108-741-05 4920 W 1ST ST GC/LMR11 0.5 FAR/11 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-07 201 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-09 113 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-11 117 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-12 121 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-16 4326 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-23 4318 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-24 4322 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-26 211 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-28 207 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-29 203 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-30 4330 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-31 4330 W 5th ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-32 4310 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-33 4314 W 5TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 398-431-19 120 N WRIGHT ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 398-441-06 301 N LINWOOD AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 398-441-09 302 N LINWOOD AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-05 301 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-25 4307 W 1ST ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-37 321 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-40 243 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LMR-11 100-281-41 409 N MOUNTAIN VIEW ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change LMR-11 402-051-08 727 S LYON ST ROW LU change MR-15 396-261-21 2031 E SANTA CLARA AVE OS 0.2 FAR LU change INS 412-341-01 2701 S RAITT ST OS 0.2 FAR LU change INS 398-391-15 1324 E 4TH ST GC 0.5 FAR LU change INS 016-035-12 417 E CENTRAL AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 109-062-33 1001 S GRAHAM LN LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 109-064-40 1001 S GRAHAM LN LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 396-211-40 2019 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 396-201-05 2100 N GRAND AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 405-233-36 1112 W CIVIC CENTER DR LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 004-070-38 1714 W MARTHA LN LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 016-090-27 400 E CENTRAL AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change INS 405-121-11 1825 W CIVIC CENTER DR INS 0.5 FAR LU change OS 415-031-16 4501 W MACARTHUR BLVD IND 0.45 FAR LU change OS 016-035-15 417 E CENTRAL AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 390-691-08 2535 N MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 390-691-09 2535 N MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 390-701-07 2535 N MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 390-701-08 2535 N MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 405-121-11 1825 W CIVIC CENTER DR LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 390-701-07 2535 N MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 390-701-06 2535 N MAIN ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 001-011-22 1817 W 21TH ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change OS 405-251-02 1212 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change PAO 399-072-17 1139 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change PAO 405-312-29 1120 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change PAO 53 City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Plan Update Inventory (December 2021) APN Situs Address fL Current General Plan Current Density/ Intensity Type of Change Proposed Density/ intensity Focus Area/Location 405-312-30 1108 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change PAO 398-522-24 1324 N BROADWAY MR15 15 du/ac LU change PAO 398-535-10 1024 N ROSS ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change PAO 398-535-11 1032 N ROSS ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change PAO 396-261-30 2360 N TUSTIN AVE INS 0.5 FAR LU change GC 396-261-31 2370 N TUSTIN AVE INS/GC 0.5 FAR LU change GC 396-261-32 2360 N TUSTIN AVE INS 0.5 FAR LU change GC 396-261-35 2360 N TUSTIN AVE INS/GC 0.5 FAR LU change GC 396-261-33 2360 N TUSTIN AVE INS/GC 0.5 FAR LU change GC 396-261-34 2370 N TUSTIN AVE INS/GC 0.5 FAR LU change GC 405-321-02 900 W 17TH ST PAO 0.5 FAR LU change GC 011-263-25 1100 S GRAND AVE IND 0.45 FAR LU change GC 198-132-21 2530 W 17TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change GC 198-132-23 2534 W 17TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR LU change GC 003-161-10 2015 POINSETTIA ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-213-53 502 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-221-22 414 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-222-39 306 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-223-26 202 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-224-33 114 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-224-40 122 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-224-41 118 N EUCLID ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 399-085-21 1715 N BRISTOL ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 405-321-02 900 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 414-022-20 3730 S GREENVILLE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 414-022-37 3730 S GREENVILLE ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 399-085-16 1223 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 399-085-17 1205 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 399-085-18 1225 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 399-085-19 1227 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 002-104-47 521 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 099-224-26 5201 W 1ST ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 004-044-48 1916 W 17TH ST LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 396-292-01 2101 N TUSTIN AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change GC 100-281-36 4315 W 1ST ST MR15 15 du/ac LU change GC 430-251-14 2100 EDINGER AVE LU change GC 396-314-06 1722 E 17TH ST LU change GC 007-321-02 1526 W 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 007-321-04 1506 W 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 007-321-17 1525 W WALNUT ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 007-321-18 1548 W 1ST ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-30 003-153-48 317 E 17TH ST UN 0.5 - 1.8 FAR density/intensity UN-50 011-251-17 1113 S STANDARD AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 011-251-18 1117 S STANDARD AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 011-251-19 1121 S STANDARD AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 011-251-20 1125 S STANDARD AVE LR7 7 du/ac LU change OS 54 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN FOR JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT, INCLUDING SUPPORTIVE FINDINGS WHEREAS, Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65300) of the Government Code requires the City to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana now seeks to adopt a comprehensive update to the Santa Ana General Plan; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update ("project") also requires the certification of the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report and related documents that have been completed for the project, which approval will be concurrent with the approval of the General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the project as currently proposed entails, among other things, (1) the revision to the State mandated Elements of the General Plan; (2) the inclusion of optional Elements to the General Plan; and (3) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020-06, which would result in a comprehensive update to the existing General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana is also located partially within the area contained within the scope of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport ("AELUP"); and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code section 21676(b) requires the City to refer projects requiring a general plan amendment or a zone change to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County ("ALUC") for consistency with the AELUP; and WHEREAS, the City submitted the General Plan Update to the ALUC for consistency review on September 17, 2020; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2020, the ALUC, by vote of 5-0, found the General Plan Update to be inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport pursuant to AELUP sections 1.2, 2.1.4, and 3.2.1, and Public Utilities Code section 21674, due to (1) proferred aircraft noise and safety issues relative to the allowed placement of residential units within the flight corridor in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area and (2) proferred building height issues in a portion of the South Bristol Street Focus Area (between MacArthur Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue); and Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), the City may overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the project is consistent with the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), on October 16, 2020, with the requisite 45-day notice, the Santa Ana City Council adopted a resolution of intent to overrule the determination of inconsistency by the ALUC, Resolution No. 2020-078, and provided the ALUC with notice thereof, including proposed findings; and WHEREAS, by letter dated November 12, 2020, and in accordance with Public Utilities Code section 21676, the ALUC submitted written comments to the City addressing the City's proposed overruling; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Program Environmental Report and General Plan Update, at which the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final PEIR and continue work on the General Plan Update to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana's environmental justice communities and in view of the COVID- 19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the Santa Ana General Plan Update subsequently underwent revisions that were not materially different from what was originally submitted to the ALUC for review, leaving the Land Use Element unchanged, nor were any new elements added that include changes within the JWA Planning area; and WHEREAS, the written comments received from the ALUC have been included in the public record as required by Public Utilities Code section 21676; and WHEREAS, in 2021, a Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated in accordance with all legal requisites, as a supplemental analysis to the original Draft PEIR to reflect the updates to the project and based on an intensive, extended community outreach program conducted by the City between January and May 2021; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Recirculated PEIR and General Plan Update. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public, and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Recirculated PEIR, adopt the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and approve the project; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final Recirculated PEIR, General Plan Update, and the proposed overruling of the determination of inconsistency by the ALUC, at which hearing members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment and the project was fully considered. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 of 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana as follows: Section 1. The City of Santa Ana is required to provide findings of fact supporting the overrule of the ALUC's determination of inconsistency as required by Public Utilities Code section 21676(b). Those findings are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated here by reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. Based on these findings of fact and the associated substantial evidence in the public record, the City Council finds that the proposed action by the City on the General Plan Update is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670 and consistent with the AELUP. Section 3. Based on the above evidence and findings made, and the remainder of the record in this matter, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby overrules the Orange County ALUC's determination that the General Plan Update is inconsistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: %- John M. Funk Sr. Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers , 2021. Vicente Sarmiento Mayor Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 11 CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2021-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 11 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACT SUBJECT: CITY OF SANTA ANA NOTICE OF INTENT TO OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, GOLDEN CITY BEYOND (2045) I. INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Ana ("City") is required to provide findings supporting the overrule of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's ("ALUC") determination of inconsistency as required in the California Public Utilities Code ("PUC") Section 21676(b). Based on the following Findings of Fact and the associated substantial evidence in the public record, the proposed action by the City on the General Plan Update, Golden City Beyond (2045) ("Project") is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as stated in PUC Section 21670, which provides, in relevant part: "It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." Specifically, the City's proposed action on the Project provides for the orderly development of John Wayne Airport ("JWA"), and its surrounding area and promotes the overall goals and objectives of the State noise standards by avoiding new noise and safety problems, and protecting the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards to the extent that this area is not already devoted to incompatible uses. II. FRAMEWORK It is in the public interest to: (1) provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to (2) promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to PUC Section 21669 and to (3) prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. A. To provide for the orderly development of JWA and the area surrounding the airport, the ALUC adopted the 2008 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport ("JWA AELUP") on April 17, 2008. The JWA AELUP guides development proposals to provide for orderly development of the airport and the area surrounding the airport through implementation of the standards in Section 2.1 (aircraft noise, safety compatibility zones, building height restrictions). B. The ALUC also adopted a separate Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports ("Heliports AELUP") on June 19, 2008. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 of 11 C. The ALUC is required to use the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") that was updated by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics ("Caltrans") in 2011. Neither the JWA AELUP nor the Heliports AELUP have been updated to incorporate the Handbook's guidance. Likewise, the JWA AELUP has not been updated with information about the operation and environmental effects of JWA as reflected in its most recent Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), certified by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on June 25, 2019 for the General Aviation Improvement Program ("GAIP"). D. On September 17, 2020, the City of Santa Ana presented the Project to the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the JWA AELUP and Heliports AELUP. E. The ALUC staff report dated October 15, 2020 ("Staff Report") recommends that the ALUC find the Project inconsistent with the JWA AELUP per Sections 1.2, 2.4.1, and 3.2.1 of the JWA AELUP, and per PUC Section 21674, due to 1) proffered aircraft "noise and safety issues" relative to the allowed placement of residential units "within the flight corridor" in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area; and 2) proffered building height issues in a portion of the South Bristol Street Focus Area (between MacArthur Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue). F. The ALUC Staff Report recommends that the ALUC find the Project consistent with the Heliports AELUP, with the condition that the City include a statement in the General Plan Update (Safety Element Policy S-4.4) that any proposals for heliports/helipads within the City be submitted through the City to ALUC for a consistency determination. G. On October 15, 2020, the ALUC held a public hearing and adopted a resolution finding the Project inconsistent with the JWA AELUP for the stated reasons set forth in the Staff Report, and further finding the Project consistent with the Heliports AELUP on the condition set forth in the Staff Report. H. The City of Santa Ana has the general police power to control land use within its territorial jurisdiction. (Cal. Const., art. XI 11, § 7). This constitutional authority is acknowledged in State law (PUC §§ 21670, 21676) and the ALUC process (JWA AELUP § 4.11) allowing for overrule of an ALUC finding of inconsistency. I. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City may overrule the commission by a two- thirds vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as stated in PUC Section 21670. J. The City finds that the Project is consistent with the JWA AELUP and with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act based on the following Findings of Fact and substantial evidence. III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. General Plan Update. The Project encompasses the entire City of Santa Ana. The General Plan Update set forth in the Project will change zoning and land use within five (5) geographic Focus Areas within the City. The comments in ALUC's Staff Report and ALUC's determination of inconsistency refer only to changes in land use within these five (5) Focus Areas. 1. The vast majority of the Project falls outside of the JWA AELUP planning area, which is defined in Section 1.7 of the JWA AELUP as "the furthest extent of the 60 CNEL Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 of 11 Contour, the FAR Part 77 Notification Surface and the runway safety zones associated with the airport." 2. Both the Grand Ave/171" Street Focus Area and the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area fall completely outside of the JWA AELUP planning area. 3. The 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area and South Bristol Focus Area are both located entirely within the JWA AELUP planning area. 4. The South Main Focus Area is located partially within the JWA AELUP planning area. B. Justification for Finding Project Consistent with the Purposes of PUC Section 21670. 1. Noise. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed Project are consistent with the aircraft noise standards of the JWA AELUP and the requirements of PUC Section 21670. a. The majority of the Project falls outside of the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour (Exhibit 2). (1) Per the JWA AELUP, all land uses are normally consistent within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour using conventional construction methods. No special noise reduction methods are required. See JWA AELUP at 23, Table 1. b. The vast majority of the Project is located outside of the JWA 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour. (1) Per the JWA AELUP, commercial (e.g. retail and office), community facilities (e.g. churches, libraries, schools, preschools, day-care centers, hospitals, nursing/convalescent homes, & other noise sensitive uses), and industrial uses are all normally consistent within the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour. See JWA AELUP at 23, Table 1. (2) Per the JWA AELUP, single and multifamily residential uses are conditionally consistent within the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour. c. Of the five (5) Focus Areas that will include a change in zoning and land use designation under the Project, only the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area lies partially within the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour. d. The General Plan Update states, as Policy N-1.3, that it shall be City policy to "[c]ollaborate with local and regional transit agencies and other jurisdictions to minimize regional traffic noise and other sources of noise in the City." e. Consistent with the JWA AELUP, the General Plan Update states, as Policy N- 3.3, that it shall be City policy to "[r]equire all residential land uses in 60 dB(A) CNEL or 65 dB(A) CNEL Noise Contours to be sufficiently mitigated so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 Db(A) CNEL." f. Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of City residents to excess noise within the meaning of PUC Section 21670. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 of 11 2. Safety. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed project are consistent with the safety standards of the JWA AELUP. a. Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP describes the airport's safety compatibility zones. (1) Per Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP, "Safety and compatibility zones depict which land uses are acceptable and which are unacceptable in various portions of airport environs." (2) The purpose of these zones, per the JWA AELUP, is to "support the continued use and operation of an airport by establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air navigational safety and to reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working or recreating near JWA." b. The JWA AELUP identifies the following Safety Zones: (1) Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone (2) Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure (3) Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone (4) Zone 4: Outer Approach/Departure Zone (5) Zone 5: Sideline Zone (6) Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone c. The Project is not in the JWA runway protection zones (RPZ). d. None of the Project Focus Areas are in any of the JWA AELUP safety zones. JWA AELUP Safety Zone 6 overlays a small portion of the City south of MacArthur Boulevard, however the Project does not propose any change in land use or zoning in this area. e. The ALUC Staff Report states that "The proposed changes in Land Use in the 55/Dyer Focus Area would result in 9,952 total residential units within the flight corridor for John Wayne Airport subjecting future residents to noise and safety issues." (1) As noted above and in Section 2.1.2 and Appendix D of the JWA AELUP, the "flight corridor for John Wayne Airport" is not an identified Safety Zone for JWA. Nor is a "flight corridor" a defined, restrictive term in the JWA AELUP, the PUC, or the Federal Aviation Regulations. f. No part of the Project will be inconsistent with the policies set forth in Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP regarding Safety Compatibility Zones. Furthermore, the ALUC did not find, and cannot find, that the Project is inconsistent with Section 2.1.2 of the JWA AELUP. g. Based on the foregoing, the Project will not result in the exposure of City residents to excessive safety hazards within the meaning of PUC Section 21670. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 8 of 11 3. Height. The residential and commercial land uses under the proposed project are consistent with the height standards of the JWA AELUP, which are stated in the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. Part 77, relating to Safe, Efficient Use and Protection of the Navigable Airspace. a. The General Plan Update states, as Policy S-4.1 Structures above 200 feet, "[p]roposed projects that would exceed a height of 200 feet above existing grade shall be required to file a Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). b. In response to Recommendation 1.b. from the ALUC Staff Report, the General Plan Update is revised to state, as Policy S-4.2 Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, "[d]o not approve buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR") Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces, unless, consistent with PUC Section 21240, such building or structure is determined by the FAA to pose "no hazard" to air navigation." Additionally, under this Policy, applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface will be required to file a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC. Referral to FAA for study under its Form 7460-1 process is appropriate because: (1) "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" (49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1)). (2) In order to use this airspace, the FAA Administrator is responsible for: (i) Plans and policy for the safe use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1)); and (ii) "[R]egulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for (A) navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft; (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground; (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and (D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicle, and between aircraft and airborne objects" (49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2)). (3) The FAA's aeronautical studies under FAR Part 77 are the definitive standard for assessing compliance with federal aviation safety laws and regulations (49 U.S.C. § 77.1(c)). This federal authority is recognized in State law. (PUC § sb21240). c. The maximum allowable building heights in the zoning and land use designations proposed in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area range between 6 and 10 stories, or about 60 and 100 feet above ground level ("AGL"). These maximum allowable building heights would not exceed the FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction surfaces for JWA, including the sloping, three-dimensional 50:1 Departure Surface, the sloping, three-dimensional 20:1 conical surface, and the 206' above mean sea level ("AMSL") horizontal surface. d. The maximum allowable building heights in the zoning and land use designations proposed in the South Bristol Street Focus Area range between 10 and 25 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 9 of 11 stories, or about 100 to 250 feet AGL. Proponents of future structures exceeding 200 feet AGL and/or structures penetrating the 100:1 Notification Surface will be required to file a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City. Per Policy S-4.2, the applicant would be required to obtain an FAA determination of no obstruction or no hazard to air navigation before seeking City approval. e. The maximum allowable building heights in the zoning and land use designations proposed in the South Main Street Focus Area range between 2 and 3 stories, or about 20 to 30 feet AGL. These maximum allowable building heights would not exceed the FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction surfaces for JWA, including the sloping, three-dimensional 20:1 conical surface, and the 206' AMSL horizontal surface. f. The Project's requirement that future construction and development comply with the FAA's 7460-1 process ensures that building heights within the Project area will not pose a hazard to air navigation. This is consistent with and furthers the purposes of PUC Section 21670 by minimizing the public's exposure to safety hazards. g. The Project is an approval only as to land use designation and zoning. No specific structures are contemplated as part of the Project. Therefore, nothing in the Project will create an obstruction or hazard to air navigation within the meaning of 14 C.F.R. Part 77, and no part of the Project involves the proposed construction or alteration of any structure. Accordingly, no aeronautical study is required as part of the Project. See 49 U.S.C. § 44718; 14 C.F.R. Part 77; FAA Order JO 7400.2M. In. The Project does not create a safety hazard pursuant to PUC Section 21670. 4. Heliports. Heliports are not permitted in any residential (R1, R2, R3, or R4) District pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-621. Outside of residential Districts, heliports are only allowed with a conditional use permit ("CUP"). a. The General Plan Update states, as Policy S-4.4 Heliport/helistop approval and requirements, "Approve the development of a heliport or helistop only if it complies with the ALUP for heliports." Policy S-4.4 further makes it City policy to "[e]nsure that each applicant seeking a conditional use permit or similar approval for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop complies fully with the state permit recommended by the FAA, by Orange County ALUC, and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements." b. As described in Draft PEIR Section 5.8, any applicant proposing a heliport "shall undergo review by the ALUC, obtain an Airspace Analysis from the FAA as specified in Section 2.1.5 of the JWA AELUP, and confirm consistency with the JWA AELUP prior to construction, as specified in Section 4.7 of the JWA AELUP." c. The Project and existing provisions within the Santa Ana Municipal Code restrict the establishment of heliports within the City. Heliports are only allowed in non- residential districts, and only once the applicant obtains a CUP following FAA Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 10 of 11 Airspace analysis and other review procedures. These restrictions minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, in furtherance of the purposes of PUC Section 21670. d. ALUC has determined that the Project is consistent with the Heliports AELUP on condition that the City include a statement in the General Plan Update (Safety Element Policy S-4.4) that any proposals for heliports/helipads within the City be submitted through the City to ALUC for a consistency determination. Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 11 of 11 Orozco, Norma From: Patricia Flores <patricia@ocej.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 3:56 PM To: eComment Subject: Re: Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report Dear Santa Ana City Council: I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. OCEJ's concerns regarding the soil -lead policies, in particular, are as follows: 1. There are no provisions for the city to engage in soil -lead testing in residential neighborhoods, and no clear process or agreed upon safety thresholds for identifying lead - contaminated properties; 2. While Implementation Action 2.4 of the Safety Element expresses a commitment to working with our organization to understand the prevalence of environmental lead contamination in Santa Ana and to proposing solutions and measurements of effectiveness, there is not an actual expressed commitment to remediating the lead. What's more, the timeline limits the action to 2022--with a problem as widespread as soil -lead contamination, one year is not enough time to effectively address the crisis; and 3. There is no commitment to collaborating with the Orange County Health Care Agency to provide healthcare services for undocumented and uninsured residents living in neighborhoods impacted by soil -lead contamination. Furthermore, we demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation action on the city's part will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Patricia J. Flores Yrarrazaval She/her/hers, they/them/theirs Project Director Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ) www.ocel.org FB/IG: @ocenvironmentaljustice Orozco, Norma From: Tim Schutz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 3:58 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Tim Schutz tschuetz@uci.edu Irvine, California 92617 Orozco, Norma From: Greg Camphire <gcamphire@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:43 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana General Plan Update Hello, I am writing with the hopes that Santa Ana City Council members and the mayor are already aware of the pollution emergency that is dangerously affecting our city's land, air, and water. In particular, the massive amount of toxic lead in the soil surrounding our most vulnerable residents is a major crisis that needs to be addressed and remediated immediately. This emergency situation has been well - documented: from a 2017 investigative report in Think Progress, to a thorough 2022 follow-up co -published by The Grist andVoice of QC —not to mention the State Attorney General's concerns about SBi000 violations in a 2020 letter to the City Attorney —and even a UN expert's related call to action to solve the life - threatening global pollution problem as covered in Reuters today. Despite this overwhelming evidence —including the fact that only 4 % of Santa Ana's open land is considered green space —I'm concerned that the General Plan in its current version does not go far enough to take immediate action in ensuring the continued health of Santa Ana residents. While not the full responsibility of the City of Santa Ana alone, the City Council must utilize the General Plan as a crucial method of bringing together multiple stakeholders and community members to develop a comprehensive policy to address environmental justice concerns, especially lead contamination. Based on past engagement with Santa Ana residents and best scientific practices, the plan should include education and outreach about the lead pollution problem, mitigation actions such as soil testing and blood lead testing, remediating contaminated soil, and identifying policy and regulatory changes needed to reduce exposure. Although these elements have been previously requested by local organizations such as Orange County Environmental Justice, it is my understanding that they are absent from the current proposed General Plan Update. I strongly urge the City to revisit the current draft of the General Plan Update with an eye toward actionable, measurable pollution response efforts that are encoded in city policies. As we painfully ease away from the worst moments of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are entering the midst of even larger growing 1 emergency: global climate chaos. This is an all -hands -on -deck moment for our city, our planet, and our species. Let's make Santa Ana a leader in the positive response to this situation and a model for other cities to follow. Together, we can work towards a greener, more sustainable world with three simple things that everyone can agree upon: clean air, clean water, and clean land. Thank you, Greg Camphire 92701 Ward 2 N Orozco, Norma From: Sandra Silva <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:53 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Sandra Silva ss3502@georgetown.edu 927 S Standard Ave, Apt 9 Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Hernandez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:16 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Maria Hernandez flavia063071@gmail.com 1434 S Minnie ST Santa Ana , California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Katie Cox <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:42 AM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Katie Cox katie.coxshrader@gmail.com 37 Park Ave. Long Beach, California 90803 Orozco, Norma From: Luis Ramirez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 11:14 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Luis Ramirez ramirez3084@gmail.com 1511 N Fairmont St Santa Ana , California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Hortencia Ramirez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 11:09 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Hortencia Ramirez Hramirez439@gmail.com Fairmont st Santa ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Teresa Campos <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:45 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Teresa Campos tcampos@giveforasmile.org 1142 S.towner St Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Yohana Rojas De Jesus <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:26 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Yohana Rojas De Jesus yohanarojasdj@hotmail.com 408 E Civic Center Dr„ 301 Santa Ana, California 92701 10 Orozco, Norma From: Yezenia Marrujo <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:25 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 11 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Yezenia Marrujo yezeniamarrujo87@gmail.com 1413 s. Minnie st. Apt.6 Santa Ana, California 92707 12 Orozco, Norma From: Kim Fortun <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 7:37 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am a UCI researcher (social sciences) and have studied sources and patterns of environmental injustice in your City. I fully agree with Santa Ana community organizations who have urged you not to pass the General Plan Update in its current form. Much more specific plans to address environmental injustice are needed. I also agree that the City needs a dedicated office and staff to address environmental justice -- in order to serve the residents of Santa Ana, and to be in step with both California and federal laws that call for accelerated, trackable plans to address the complex of factors that contribute to environmental injustice. Further, the Environmental Impact Report that is coupled to the General Plan is inadequate, both in scoping and timing. The Environmental Impact Report will expire very soon, and clearly needs both updated and more extensive data to serve its purpose. I have been inspired by the work and progressive vision of community organizations in Santa Ana, and know that many UCI researchers are ready to work with them to realize their visions. Slowing down your General Plan Update is needed to allow this alliance to bear fruit Thank you for your service as elected officials, Kim Fortun, PhD School of Social Sciences, AirUCI, and Center for Environmental Health Disparities University of California Irvine Kim Fortun kfortun@uci.edu 13 92 Coltrane Court Irvine, California 92617 14 Orozco, Norma From: Leonel Flores <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:57 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 15 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Leonel Flores leonel.flores40@yahoo.com 1431 S Orange Ave Santa Ana, California 92707 16 Orozco, Norma From: Tristan Cimo <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2022 1:49 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report, 2-15-2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 17 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Tristan Cimo TrissStyx@gmail.com Fountain Valley, California 92708 18 Orozco, Norma From: Maricela Castro <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2022 5:59 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report, 2-15-2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 19 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Maricela Castro maricela7720@gmail.com 300E. Santa Ana Blvd. Apt. 302 Santa Ana, California 92701 20 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Cortes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:41 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 21 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Maria Cortes mayte74668@gmail.com 1425 S Orange Ave Santa Ana ca , California 92707 22 Orozco, Norma From: Alana LeBron <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 8:19 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 23 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Alana LeBron alebron@uci.edu 60 Coltrane Court Irvine, California 92617 24 Orozco, Norma From: Jun Wu <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 8:19 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 25 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Jun Wu junwu@uci.edu 100 Theory, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 26 Orozco, Norma From: Jazmin Candelario <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 9:02 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 27 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Jazmin Candelario candelario.jazmin@gmail.com 1157 W Chatwau Ave Anaheim, California 92802 28 Orozco, Norma From: Adriana Sierra <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:19 AM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 26, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. 29 We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Adriana Sierra adril4sierra@gmail.com Santa Ana, California 92707 30 Orozco, Norma From: Alicia Estrada <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2022 4:28 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report, 2-15-2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Alicia Estrada atarifan3329@aol.com Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Linda Lehnkering <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 5:11 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Linda Lehnkering ellethree@gmail.com 206 S Melrose St Anaheim, California 92805-4027 Orozco, Norma From: woolley@chapman.edu <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:59 AM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California SB1000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. woolley@chapman.edu 338 w kelly ave Orange , California 92866 Orozco, Norma From: Brenda Moron <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:24 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Brenda Moron infinite8flux@gmail.com 2010 W Harvard St Santa Ana, California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: doris yang <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:54 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. doris yang dorisyaang@gmail.com Orange, California 92866 Orozco, Norma From: taft.nathan@gmail.com <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:36 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Sincerely, Nathan Taft, Ward 3 taft.nathan@gmail.com 1919 Sherry Ln Santa Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: cortes.hairo@gmail.com <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:41 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. cortes.hairo@gmail.com 600 W 3rd Street #A205 Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Amber Campos <campos_amber@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:56 PM To: eComment Subject: Nova Academy Parent Hello, my name is Amber Campos, I am a resident of Santa Ana and I am a parent of two students attending NOVA Academy Early College High School. As a parent, my child's safety at school is of utmost importance. This includes knowing: -The campus environment will remain intact That they are able to quickly exit the building in case of emergency and escape to a safe space free of construction equipment and debris That they are able to happily participate in school activities in and around campus, and enjoy their high school experience to the fullest. Please remember the children at NOVA Academy Early College High School as you adopt the General Plan Update. Thank you for your leadership on behalf of our children and our community. Respectfully, Amber Campos Orozco, Norma From: Isander Gutierrez < info@sg.actionnetwork.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:22 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Isander Gutierrez beringers.decline@gmail.com Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Ivann Muniz <ivannm49@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:17 PM To: eComment Cc: Leonel Flores Subject: General Plan Hello, My name is Jhoel Muniz and I am a memeber of the CUAL committee. I am here asking you to delay the General Plan since it still lacks many policies that many of our residents in our community deem extremely important. Policies which we believe should be included in the General Plan include those of Environmental Justice. As it stands, those policies are not enough to protect the health of our community memebers that deserve to have clean air. The lives and overall wellbeing of the residents of Santa Ana will be put at risk if no Environmental Justice policies are implemented into the General Plan. I urge you to please delay the General Plan and take time to implement policies in favor of Environmental Justice. The community deserves to be heard and taken into account in such an important decision that will affect the future of the next generation and beyond. Thank you. Orozco, Norma From: Orozco, Norma Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:41 PM To: eComment Subject: RE: Retrasen el Plan General Translation Good afternoon, my name is Angeles Diaz and I am part of the CUAL committee and I want to ask you to delay the General Plan since it still lacks many very important policies that the General Plan should have in terms of Environmental Justice and it is not enough to protect health. of our community that deserves to have clean air for the well-being of our families and community so please I ask you to delay the General Plan. Based on this I expect a favorable response to my request. Thank you very much for your attention. From: Maria de los angeles Diaz <angelesdiaz.jis072@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:17 PM To: eComment <ecomment@santa-ana.org> Subject: Retrasen el Plan General Buenas tardes mi nombre es Angeles Diaz y soy parte del comite CUAL y quiero pedirles que se retrase el Plan General ya que aun le faltan muchas political muy importantes que deveria tener el Plan General en cuanto a Justicia Ambiental y no es suficiente Para proteger la salud de nuestra comunidad que merece tener aire limpio Para el bienestar de nuestras familias y comunidad asi que por favor les pido que retrasen el Plan General. En base a esto Espero una respuesta favorable a mi peticion, Muchas gracias por su atencion. Orozco, Norma From: Matthew Delgado <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:10 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California SB1000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Matthew Delgado mattjdel9l@gmail.com 1715 s towner st Santa ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Fabiola Santiago <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:46 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Fabiola Santiago fs40l4310@gmail.com 1401 N ross st Santa Ana , California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Dorian Romero <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:17 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community. Dorian Romero dorian@saascoalition.org Santa Ana , California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Patricia J Yrarrazaval <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:42 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Sincerely, Patricia J. Flores Yrarrazaval Executive Director Orange County Environmental Justice www.ocej.org Patricia J Yrarrazaval patricia@ocej.org 3102 S. Townsend St. Santa Ana, California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Greg Camphire <gcamphire@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:58 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 32: Adoption of the General Plan Hello, I am writing with concerns about Santa Ana's upcoming General Plan. While the plan was delayed nearly a year ago to accommodate further engagement with the communities most affected by environmental justice issues (as required by CA SB100), it seems that the plan has not been updated significantly during that time. Like many other Santa Ana residents, I'm concerned that the General Plan in its current form fails to sufficiently incorporate some essential elements that have been requested. Local community groups including Orange County Environmental Justice, THRIVE Santa Ana, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, and Rise Up Willowick have actively been advocating for a number of important issues over the past year, and these must be directly addressed in the General Plan for it to meet the requirements of SB 100. These issues include: • A thorough plan for remediation of the widespread lead pollution disaster in the soil of Santa Ana, which was recently documented in great detail by Voice off; • The creation of a community land trust from vacant city -owned land; • The enforcement of buffer zones between homes/schools and polluting industrial sites such as the corridor along south Main St.; • Specific plans to build parks and green space, ideally meeting a ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, with amendments to the Municipal Code to reflect this. Please take these comments into consideration and delay the General Plan until they can be incorporated. I look forward to helping make Santa Ana a cleaner, greener, and healthier place for all residents. Thank you, Greg Camphire Ward 2 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Flor Barajas Tena <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:22 AM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Flor Barajas Tena fbtena@gmail.com 2015 N VALENCIA ST SANTA ANA, California 92706-2936 Orozco, Norma From: Jocelyn Rubio <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 1:38 PM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California SB1000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Jocelyn Rubio jocelyn.rubio@ymail.com 1033 W Saint Gertrude PI Santa Ana , California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Jose Rea <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 10:55 AM To: eComment Subject: eComment - Item 23 January 18 2022 eComments City Council Santa Ana, Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the General Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. For decades now, Santa Ana residents have suffered from the combined impacts of soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and having less open space and parkland than the majority of cities in the United States. Many of the city's low-income neighborhoods are contaminated with lead at 25 to 50 times higher than the California EPA safety threshold; huge swaths of Santa Ana face pollution burden scores of 84 to 99 out of 100; and low-income neighborhoods of color have 73% less park land than the region's more affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods. These health crises and environmental injustices have persisted for generations in our community —and now, Santa Ana City Council has the opportunity to take action. Under California S131000, Santa Ana's latest General Plan Update must address the environmental justice needs of our residents —however, despite the input and recommendations of a variety of community members and stakeholders, the city has not sufficiently committed to resolving these issues and prioritizing the health of our community. We demand that the city establish a permanent Environmental Justice office with a public health expert on staff, to conduct regular meetings with residents and community organizations to guide implementation of these policies, give regular reports on local environmental health issues, and ensure a relationship of accountability and transparency between the city and the community. Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. Furthermore, by the Planning Department's own admission, the EIR's data is set to expire in February 2022. An updated EIR with fresh data, community input on which neighborhoods are designated as EJ Communities, and consideration for the impacts of lead paint removal activities is necessary before the city can ethically move forward with the General Plan Update. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report at the next council meeting, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the stale data and increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will place the city in violation of California S131000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our voices, and for fulfilling your responsibilities as the council members we elected to represent the needs of our community Jose Rea josejrea@gmail.com 1201 S. Halladay St. Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Natalie A Sierra <nasierra01 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:42 PM To: eComment Subject: Delay the General Plan Update Hello, My name is Natalie, I am a resident of the Madison Park neighborhood, and I'm here to demand that you delay the General Plan Update in accordance with California law and with the demands of the Santa Ana community. During the limited, unsuccessful outreach the City has conducted, the City has not sufficiently accommodated the needs of EJ communities. There have been multiple issues conducting community outreach events online, including the lack of translation services, technological difficulties, and a lack of necessary telecommunication services within EJ communities. While we appreciate the effort the city has made to address these issues in recent meetings, this does not change the fact that so many community members' voices have been excluded from the process. How can we move forward with the plan without including our voices? Thank you for your time. Orozco, Norma From: Patricia Flores <patricia@ocej.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Re: Item 41, Santa Ana General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report Dear Santa Ana City Council, I am writing to urge you to not pass the Environmental Justice provisions of the General Plan Update, nor the Environmental Impact Report, without addressing the concerns of residents and organizations like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, THRIVE Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick regarding the updated Plan's ability to effectively remediate soil -lead contamination, air pollution, and the lack of open space in our city. We do not oppose passing the Housing Element of the General Plan, since there is a strict timeline for that element, but we believe the individual environmental justice policies of the Plan must be revised, as they do not sufficiently address the rampant environmental health issues that are poisoning our communities every day. OCEJ's concerns regarding the soil -lead policies, in particular, are as follows: 1. There are no provisions for the city to engage in soil -lead testing in residential neighborhoods, and no clear process or agreed upon safety thresholds for identifying lead -contaminated properties; 2. While Implementation Action 2.4 of the Safety Element expresses a commitment to working with our organization to understand the prevalence of environmental lead contamination in Santa Ana and to proposing solutions and measurements of effectiveness, there is not an actual expressed commitment to remediating the lead. What's more, the timeline limits the action to 2022--with a problem as widespread as soil -lead contamination, one year is not enough time to effectively address the crisis; and 3. There is no commitment to collaborating with the Orange County Health Care Agency to provide healthcare services for undocumented and uninsured residents living in neighborhoods impacted by soil -lead contamination. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report should not be passed as is, because it does not account for the fact that removing lead -based paint, as one of the General Plan provisions requires, actually shakes lead loose into the air and substantially increases soil -lead contamination in the area. Therefore, mitigation action on the city's part will be necessary to counteract this environmental impact. If City Council decides to vote on the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report today, please vote not to approve the Environmental Justice components of the plan without our recommended revisions, and do not approve the EIR without accounting for the increase in lead contamination that the Plan could cause. Failing to account for these issues will put the city in violation of California SB 1000, a dangerous move when the eyes of the California Attorney General's office are fixed on Santa Ana. If necessary, feel free to approve the Housing Element of the plan --but please, do not ignore these urgent health crises facing our community. Sincerely, Patrici J. Flores Yrarrazaval She/her/hers, they/them/theirs Project Director Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ) www.ocej.org FBAG: @ocenvironmentaljustice Orozco, Norma From: Greg Camphire <gcamphire@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 12:19 PM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; thaivphan@gmail.com; Lopez, Jessie; Mendoza, Nelida; jryanhernadez@santa-ana.org; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil Subject: Santa Ana General Plan Hello City Council members, I'm writing with concerns about Santa Ana's General Plan and whether it seriously meets the requirements to comply with SB 1000, "The Planning for Healthy Communities Act." It doesn't seem like the current version of the General Plan is going far enough to address specific concerns of Santa Ana residents who, like myself, reside in areas with high levels of lead pollution in the soil and toxic particulates in the air. You may have noticed the terrible air quality in Santa Ana over the past few months, with existing industrial pollution exacerbated by excessive fuel from cargo ships backed up in nearby ports, as well as wildfires and other climate change -related disasters. This issue has been covered recently and extensively by the OC Register, Voice of OC, and LA Times; but recent events are just the latest negative development in our region's air quality, which stems from unregulated businesses producing toxic chemicals, especially along the South Main corridor, with no effective buffer zones between schools and residential areas --including where I and many neighbors live. The lead pollution in our soil has also been a longstanding issue that has been covered extensively in local media. Links to cancer, asthma, learning disabilities, and other ailments have been well -established, but merely recognizing this problem is not enough. The city needs to develop a comprehensive testing and remediation plan to maintain the health of residents, especially children and seniors. Finally, our city's lack of open green space borders on criminal neglect. With only a stunningly low 4% of Santa Ana's land considered green space --including a private golf course and cemetery(!) --we are in desperate need of more trees, parks, gardens, and other healthy plant -based environments in a very polluted city. The current General Plan does not address this need, especially when considering that the plan calls for further housing and commercial developments to accommodate significant population increases. This is an emergency! As we continue battling the long-term effects of the unending Covid pandemic, along with the larger climate crisis, it is essential that Santa Ana leads the way in supporting healthy futures for its residents. I am strongly urging you to revisit the General Plan to ensure that it is clearly and effectively meeting our environmental justice needs. Otherwise, we are doomed. Thank you, Greg C. 92701 December 7, 2021 Via Email Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 nn wwea .den ne d yconvmtios.Mioun org lrvinv, CA 92614 9,49 2 9) NO Re: Item 37 - Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 for Santa Ana General Plan Update Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Councilmembers Phan, Penaloza, Lopez, Bacerra, Hernandez, and Mendoza, The Kennedy Commission (the Commission), a broad -based coalition of residents and community organizations, advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has successfully partnered and worked with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land -use policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower -income working families. As the City Council considers adopting the draft General Plan Update ("the General Plan") today, the Commission would like to make clear that it opposes the adoption of the Plan as it is proposed today. The Commission does not believe the policies and programs proposed in the General Plan will effectively address the needs of residents or the concerns they raised during the City's community engagement events. Before the Council approves the General Plan, we request the City address the three following concerns: 1) In the General Plan, the City identifies five Focus Areas in the City where it plans to intensify development: 17th St. & Grand Ave., 55 Fwy & Dyer Rd., South Bristol St., South Main St., and West Santa Ana Blvd.' The City needs to provide policies that ensure that there will be robust production of 100% affordable housing in these areas. Without such policies, it is likely that the increases in densities being applied to these areas through the General Plan Update will primarily lead to market -rate housing. 2) Many census tracts in the five Focus Areas face a disproportionate level of environmental pollution.2 Intensifying development and increasing the population in these areas without addressing these environmental concerns is not acceptable. Therefore, the City should consider conducting a preliminary environmental assessment of the five Focus Areas to understand the level of environmental pollution residents of these areas are and will face and, thus, determine the suitability of these areas for increased residential use. Santa Ana General Plan Public Review Draft, p. 238, December 2021 htt s://www.sanka...ana.or /sites/default/Files/ I / eneral... lan/December%202021 %20Draft/2021'%20 SA'Yo20Genera '%20FIlan'%20 1%20Combined1%20Doc comressed.df 2 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, hkk s://ex erience.arc is.com/experience/edS S3d8 ¢J38431d1 F4f22ab9abfe40d/. Page 2 of 2 3) The General Plan does not propose policies that will effectively address the City's deep parkland deficit. The City currently has a parkland deficit of 154.44 acres, which means that for every 1,000 residents there are only 1.54 acres of parkland.3 The deficit is projected to increase to 346.41 acres by the year 2045 based on the development and population increases the City anticipates the Plan's proposed policies will facilitate, or to 1.20 acres per every 1,000 residents.' Parks provide important benefits including improving physical and mental health, improving air quality, and reducing heat levels. They are essential to creating healthy and thriving communities. To ensure that the intensification of development does not further exacerbate the City's parkland deficit, the City should consider adopting the No -Net -Loss of Open Space being proposed by community groups like the Rise Up Willowick Coalition. This policy would require that current open space in the City lost to the market -rate housing be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. This policy would preserve open space in the City that can be converted to publicly accessible parkland. 4) In addition to concerns over the General Plan not addressing the City's current and future parkland deficit and the need for affordable housing policies, there are other environmental justice (EJ) issues the City's General Plan does not adequately address. Community groups like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Santa Ana Active Transportation, and Thrive Santa Ana have raised concerns over the fact that the General Plan policies will not solve issues over air quality, lead contamination of soil, mobility, and the need to prioritize community -led land use and development, like through community land trusts. The City says that it has done an adequate amount of community outreach over the last year and, thus, it is ready to adopt the General Plan. While there were multiple EJ forums and an EJ survey where residents and community groups raised the concerns mentioned in this letter, the City's General Plan does not adequately address them. True community engagement means that the City not only provides ample opportunities for community input, but that the City also addresses the input residents provide. The Commission requests that the Council not adopt the General Plan being proposed tonight and instead direct City staff to work with residents and community groups to develop policies that actually address community needs and concerns. The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City of Santa Ana to create opportunities to increase affordable homes for lower income households in the City. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director 3 Final Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.15 4, October, 2021, p. 5.15-28, htt alwww. anta-ana.or / ite ldefauPtPfile l l l eneral- lanll�ovf"Elf 2021/Volurne'1o2021Ch 05...15 REC.ndf. 4 Ibid. THRIVE Santa Ana General Plan Analysis -- Land Use Element Page 2 No mention of historic Latinx or Black neighborhoods, nor immigrant and refugee communities, nor youth, nor protecting residents from displacement Page 3 The "Community Considerations" represent powerful direction from residents, coming from community meetings. The proposed draft does not make concrete policy commitments to these "considerations" Page 4 Goal is good; but Policies seem to favor attraction of new residents and amenities rather than investment into and protection of existing communities. Page 5 Employment opportunities Policy LU-2.1 r "`Provide a broad spectrum of land uses and development that offer employment opportunities for current and future Santa Ana residents." Remove "current and future," Policy LU-2.2 Capture Local Spending This policy goal is key; consider making this the first Policy LU-2.5 Benefits of Mixed -Use Mixed -use at lower affordability -- representative of Santa Ana population 95.5% of renter households in the $20,000 - $35,000 range are rent burdened (Santa Ana Housing Needs Assesment Report, May 19, 2021) Policy LU-2.6 ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT Promote rehabilitation of properties and encourage increased levels of capital investment to [support local economic growth and ownership]. POLICY LU-2.8 CITY IMAGE Encourage land uses, development projects, and public art installations that promote the City's image as a cultural [powerhouse, home to immigrant, refugee, Black, brown and indigenous communities. Commit City resources to the creation of public art by local youth and low income residents.] Page 6 POLICY LU-3.1 COMMUNITY BENEFITS Support [only] new development which provides [specific, material] community benefit[s] and [enhances existing] neighborhood character and identity. Note: "A Net" suggests that community benefits may be taken away, as long as a favorable sum is obtained in the end. That language is not necessary. POLICY LU-3.2 EMPOWER COMMUNITY Facilitate [and require] community [involvement] and dialogue in policy decisions and outcomes affecting land use and development, with [additional] opportunities for [community] planning activities within environmental justice area boundaries. POLICY LU-3.3 ENFORCEMENT OF STANDARDS Maintain a robust and proactive code enforcement program that partners with community stakeholders and is responsive to community needs. [This includes code enforcement that does not criminalize poverty, nor expose tenants to retaliation from landlords for reporting violations]. POLICY LU-3.5 ADAPTIVE REUSE Encourage the preservation and reuse of historical [, obsolete, and underutilized] buildings and sites through flexible land use policies. POLICY LU-3.9 NOXIOUS, HAZARDOUS, DANGEROUS, AND POLLUTING USES Improve the health of residents, students, and workers by [eliminating] the operation of noxious, hazardous, dangerous, and polluting uses that are in close proximity to sensitive receptors, with priority given to discontinuing such uses within environmental justice area boundaries. [Implement remediation in collaboration with community organizations] [consult with Environmental Justice organizations on this point] Page 7 POLICY LU-3.10 COMMUNITY ATTRACTIONS [Utilize Community Benefits Agreements to] support the development of regional land uses that allow for entertainment, sports and unique venues [for the] benefit [of] the local community. Page 8 POLICY LU-4.4 NATURAL RESOURCE CAPTURE Encourage the use of natural [and structural] processes to capture rainwater runoff, sustainable electric power, and passive climate control. Page 12 More open space The following parcels should be designated open space, per City Council direction on 8/17/2021 • 915, 921 N Flower St 842 N Garnsey St Santa Ana 92703 APN#005-142-35, - 47, -58 • 925 N Flower, 852 N Garnsey, and 848 N Garnsey, Santa Ana 92703 APN# 005-142-34, -49, -48 810 N English St -- Artesia Pilar Neighborhood has expressed interest in a pocket park at English and Civic Center Blvd. What is the environmental impact of higher density developments? Page 23 Remove ONE BROADWAY PLAZA DISTRICT CENTER (OBPCD) zoning designation Page 47 West Santa Ana Blvd Objectives ADD >> Create access for existing residents to affordable development and transit opportunities Page 70 1.2 Community benefits. Develop a standard of review for evaluation of a new development project's net community benefit by identifying types of community benefits desired in neighborhoods through public outreach. Assess capital costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs; conduct a financial feasibility analysis to determine the impacts of community benefits on the feasibility of desired types of development. [Require new developments to provide specific community benefits identified by local residents.] [Utilize community benefit agreements for new developments over 2,000 SF or 15 units.] Support [only] new development which provides [specific, material] community benefit[s] and [enhances existing] neighborhood character and identity. Page 71 2.8 / or 2.15 [Community Land Trust Utilize public resources including Surplus Land to support the development of at least one community land trust, to provide opportunities for community ownership and permanent affordability.] 2.11 Language provided to City staff in September and October 2020 Anti - Displacement strategies [Whereas many communities that are now or may be served by development in planning areas are low-income and minority households and small locally- and minority -owned businesses that are at a potentially higher risk of displacement due to a range of factors, the City shall: Implement and support strategies that stop the displacement of existing businesses and individuals from properties impacted by development projects; and Support community and mission -based development opportunities that reduce displacement risk for low-income communities and communities of color by utilizing creative development delivery strategies, including community ownership models such community land trusts, tenant opportunities to purchase, right of first refusal, and others to build local wealth and support existing populations.] THRIVE Public Comments @ Planning Commission Meeting (Nov 8, 2021?) Two key areas are still largely unaddressed: The displacement of the longtime residents in Santa Ana's low income neighborhoods, particularly youth, immigrants, renters, and other key vulnerable neighbors that are at the heart and soul of Santa Ana's character as a City, and are an integral part of our identity and our economy. Environmental justice, too, has received a great deal of attention in the draft general plan, yet clear solutions have not been established for the widespread ground contamination, concentrated in low income neighborhoods of color Environmental justice also includes the availability of healthy food, open space, healthy living spaces, housing, and many other quality of life resources, including adequate civic representation and economic opportunities, which are largely lacking in our low income neighborhoods. The current draft of the general plan is lacking in concrete commitments in these areas: Language around ... • Anti -displacement • Tenant protections • Community benefits ... is weak, and make no actual commitments on the part of the City other than more meetings, without actual commitments to assure future development benefits existing residents and neighborhoods Completely missing Community land trusts Tenant opportunity to purchase First right of return Right of first refusal Mitigation of ground contamination The current draft goes so far as providing a private zoning code for developer Mike Harrah's project One Broadway Plaza, despite historic community opposition to this project Page 23 of the land use element provides for a new zoning code, ONE BROADWAY PLAZA DISTRICT CENTER (OBPDC) , explicitly created for the benefit of a developer December 7, 2021 City of Santa Ana Mayor and City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Re: Draft General Plan -- Recommendations Dear City of Santa Ana City Council and Staff, THRIVE Santa Ana is a nonprofit community organization dedicated to promoting economic development that builds community wealth, multigenerational resident leadership, and ensures permanent and access to affordable, healthy neighborhoods. The City's General Plan (GP) will set goals and policies to guide development in Santa Ana for the following decade, and will impact residents for generations to come. We recognize the efforts of City staff in hosting community meetings, and the City's impacted timeline. Nevertheless there are important deficiencies in the proposed draft that might be easily addressed. As THRIVE has taken part in outreach efforts with City staff, we put forward the following recommendations for City Council's consideration. Also attached for your reference are THRIVE's analysis on the GP's Land Use Element and notes from THRIVE's participation at the November 2021 Planning Commission Meeting regarding the General Plan: Recommendations: 1. Do not approve the General Plan as currently drafted. Direct staff to meet with community groups and establish collaborative strategies in the General Plan, to address concerns around soil contamination, environmental justice, and displacement of residents caused by development projects. Assure better alignment between Community Considerations, policy goals, and Implementation actions. 2. Work with Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, and other community members impacted by lead soil contamination and other environmental justice issues. Commit City resources to identify and eliminate harmful substances from affected areas in the City. 3. Include on page 71 of the Land Use Element, as Implementation Action 2.11, the following language to support community ownership and strategies against displacement. Model language was shared with the City in September -October 2020. Anti - Displacement strategies [Many communities that are now or may be served by development in planning or focus areas are low-income and minority households and small locally- and minority -owned businesses that are at a potentially higher risk of displacement due to a range of factors. The City shall: (1) implement and support strategies that stop the displacement of existing businesses and individuals from properties impacted by development projects; and (2) support community and mission -based development opportunities that reduce displacement risk for low-income communities and communities of color by utilizing creative development delivery strategies, including cooperative ownership, community land trusts, tenant opportunities to purchase, right of first refusal, and others to build local wealth and support existing populations.] The following recommendations address key issues with the General Plan Update. These policy solutions are familiar to City staff, and would strengthen existing language. 4. Include on page 71 of the Land Use Element, as Implementation Action 2.8, the following language to support a Community Land Trust strategy in Santa Ana, which would allow for permanently affordable housing: Community Land Trust Utilize public resources including Surplus Land to support the development of at least one community land trust, to provide opportunities for community ownership and permanent affordability. 5. Include on page 70 of the Land Use Element, as Implementation Action 1.2, the following language to guarantee community benefits from new development. New language indicated in [brackets]. Community benefits Develop a standard of review for evaluation of a new development project's net community benefit by identifying types of community benefits desired in neighborhoods through public outreach. Assess capital costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs; conduct a financial feasibility analysis to determine the impacts of community benefits on the feasibility of desired types of development. [Require new developments to provide specific community benefits identified by local residents.] [Utilize community benefit agreements for new developments over 25,000 SF or 15 units.] Many of these recommendations have been expressed by THRIVE previously to City staff and Commissioners, and by community members as far back as the General Plan Advisory Group. Although the General Plan makes reference to "Community Considerations," the GP's proposed policies are not effectively aligned with these vital policy recommendations. Despite the enumeration of community meetings and outreach strategies, the current draft of the GP will further gentrification and enhance inequality in our City. Please do not approve the GP as currently drafted; direct City staff to meet with THRIVE, community organizations, and residents to improve the document before bringing it back to Council for approval. Thank you, Board of Directors THRIVE Santa Ana (714)987-2009 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE S�tY Op BERKELEY - DAVIS - IRVINE - LOS ANGELES - RIVERSIDE - SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO j r 1868 December 7, 2021 RE: General Plan Process and Content Dear Santa Ana City Council Members, SANTA BARBARA - SANTA CRUZ Dept. of Health, Society, and Behavior Dept. of Chicano/Latino Studies 653 E. Peltason Drive, AIRB 2026 Irvine, CA 92697 I write in my role as a founding member of the iPlo-NO Santa Ana! Lead -Free Santa Ana! Community - Academic Partnership to understand and address resident -driven concerns about lead in the environment. In this role, we have developed a robust sampling and analysis process, and have thoughtfully engaged residents of Santa Ana to better understand their concerns. I write to ask that the Mayor and City Council vote to delay adoption of the General Plan Update and the EIR, to take the time to adopt specific commitments to remediating environmental injustices in Santa Ana, and to implement a community review and approval process for each component in the General Plan prior to approval by City Council. We believe that the current soil -lead policies in particular are insufficient, because: 1) there are no provisions for the city to engage in soil -lead testing in residential neighborhoods, and no clear process or agreed upon safety thresholds for identifying lead -contaminated properties; 2) while Implementation Action 2.4 of the Safety Element expresses a commitment to working with our organization to understand the prevalence of environmental lead contamination in Santa Ana and to proposing solutions and measurements of effectiveness, there is not an actual expressed commitment to remediating the lead, and the timeline limits the action to 2022- -with a problem as widespread as soil -lead contamination, one year is not enough time to effectively address the crisis; and 3) there is no commitment to collaborating with the Orange County Health Care Agency to provide health care for undocumented and uninsured residents living in neighborhoods impacted by soil -lead contamination. In the long-term, we would like the city to create an Environmental Justice Enforcement Agency, with staff trained to document and investigate community concerns about potential environmental injustices, meet quarterly with community stakeholders (like OCEJ, MPNA, Thrive Santa Ana, Santa Ana Active Streets Coalition, and Rise Up Willowick) to determine best practices for addressing environmental injustices, and to provide residents with regular reports on their work and local environmental health issues they have identified. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification. My contact information is below. AlanaM.W. LeBr6n, PhD, MS Email aJ ra.i((i ucIl.edu University of California, Irvine, Phone: (617) 733-7963 Department of Health, Society, and Behavior Fax: (949) 824-1019 & Department of Chicano/Latino Studies 653 E. Peltason Drive Anteater Instructional & Research Building Suite 2026 Irvine, CA 92697 Sincerely, Alana M.W. LeBr6n, PhD, MS Assistant Professor 2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERULEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Program in Public Health December 7, 2021 Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 r SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ .a a tlnB Anteater Instruction & Research Bldg Irvine, CA 92697-3957 (949) 824-0548 (949) 824-0529 FAX Re: Public Comment to Agenda Item #37 for December 7, 2021 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Dear Santa Ana City Councilmembers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana General Plan Update and the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). I am Professor of Environmental Health and Graduate Director of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of California, Irvine. My research focuses on population -based studies of environmental exposure assessment, environmental health, and environmental health disparity. I have been working with community partners in Santa Ana for the past few years on environmental injustice issues. I am writing to request that the City of Santa Ana 1) delay approval of the General Plan Update and certification of its accompanying FEIR; 2) work with communities to develop more comprehensive understanding of their environmental health concerns; and 3) incorporate pending resident concerns and suggestions in the General Plan that will make the City of Santa Ana more accountable in addressing the environmental injustice issues. Below are my top reasons for the requests. 1) The UCI Public Health researchers have been working with community organizations (i.e. Orange County Environmental Justice and Madison Park Neighborhood Association) on various environmental injustice issues, including soil lead contamination and air pollution problems at both outdoor environment and workplaces. The collaborative work revealed substantial concerns of elevated contaminant exposures being experienced by Santa Ana residents and workers. Exposure to multiple environmental hazards may lead to numerous adverse health outcomes including asthma, cardiovascular diseases, IQ loss, and cancer etc. However, the recent Santa Ana Community Survey was designed and administered inadequately, which forced residents to choose between environmental justice priorities and had only a 0.2% participation rate. Thus the results of the survey likely did not capture all of the environmental health issues concerning the residents. 2) The City Council has held a few round table discussions with the UCI and Orange County Environmental Justice on soil lead contamination in 2021. However, the proposed solutions were not incorporated in the General Plan Update. More specifically, we believe that the current soil -lead policies are insufficient for three reasons: • There are no provisions for the city to engage in soil -lead testing in residential neighborhoods, and no clear process or agreed upon safety thresholds for identifying lead -contaminated properties; Rm 2034 There is very limited commitment for the city to conduct soil remediation and blood testing, which should be continuing commitment over many years until lead contamination is no longer a problem instead a short-term attempt with a narrow scope of work; and There is no commitment for the city to collaborating with the Orange County Health Care Agency to provide health care for undocumented and uninsured residents living in neighborhoods impacted by soil -lead contamination. 3) The General Plan does not adequately address existing environmental problems that Santa Ana residents are experiencing now. Pediatric emergency room asthma visits in Orange County are the highest in Santa Ana. Residents in Madison Park Neighborhood in Santa Ana raised concerns about chemical emissions from over 40 facilities permitted by the South Coast Air Management District (SCAQMD) in an "industrial corridor" adjacent to the neighborhood. But such environmental health issues and community concerns are omitted. In addition, the General Plan Update mentions the collaboration with the SCAQMD and local stakeholders to outline objectives and strategies for monitoring air pollution. However, the timeline was only set for 2022 and there was lack of actionable goals (e.g. establish a long-term air monitoring station in the city, closely monitor emissions of existing industrial facilities, monitor indoor air in industrial sectors with potentially high pollution levels). I suggest that the Plan incorporates regular sampling for environmental agents (e.g. air, soil, water) within the city, which can provide a foundation to address the existing environmental health concerns raised by residents. In summary, the General Plan Update does not adequately address environmental justice issues and the existing environmental health problems the Santa Ana residents are facing. I strongly urge the City to delay approval of the General Plan Update so that the residents can have more time to understand the information presented and voice their concerns and suggestions. Sincerely, Jun Wu, Ph.D. Professor and Graduate Program Director, Environmental and Occupational Health Program in Public Health, Susan and Henry Samueli College of Health Science University of California, Irvine Community r��i�iUCI December 7, 2021 Santa Ana City Council c/o Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 ecomment(a,santa-ana. org Re: Public Comment to Agenda Item #37 for December 7, 2021 Santa Ana City Council Meeting Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Council Members I am writing to express concerns that the community outreach process for the Santa Ana General Plan Update has not sufficiently engaged with the perspectives and needs of impacted residents in Santa Ana Furthermore, the policies the city is proposing to adopt into the General Plan do not adequately address the decades -long soil -lead crisis and its toll on the health of our most vulnerable communities. UCI Community Resilience Projects, a unit within the UCI Office of Sustainability, has supported iPlo- NO! Santa Ana! (Lead -Free Santa Ana% a community -academic partnership formed in 2017, to investigate and remediate soil lead in Santa Ana and to advocate for the health equity needs of Santa Ana's disadvantaged communities. Through soil sample testing, we found that over 50% of residential samples had levels of lead that exceeded California EPA recommendations. What's more, we found that the neighborhoods most impacted by soil -lead contamination were also: • Predominantly people of color • Lower median household income • Lower % of college educated residents • Higher proportions of renters • Higher fraction of residents without health insurance • Higher proportion of residents with immigrant status background • Limited English proficiency • Predominantly Latinx/Hispanic residents These frontline communities in Santa Ana face a disproportionate impact of lead in their everyday lives, and yet they have been left out of the decision -making process that decides how to address the issue. This is why it is critical that moving forward we ensure that stakeholders that can give voice to their community are included in the city's planning efforts. The City Council has shown a willingness to engage in this process before. Last fall, the City Council paused the adoption of the General Plan Update and invited community stakeholders, including iPlo-NO! Santa Ana!, to a series of roundtable discussions to inform the development of a community survey for outreach and engagement. Additionally, the City Planning Department invited iPlo-NO! Santa Ana! to a series of meetings to present research and inform policies to address the soil -lead crisis. Ma61Hing ddirass: c/o UCI II...aw, 401. l::::ast II::�aIkasoirn II)irve, 3uto 1.000, Ili 6irwa, CA 92 97...1.000 I::�h s6call ddirass: Suirnirneir 3ass6oirn I13' (13uH6ir:g 230), 3uto 1.1.0, umU ll, Ilia ine CA 92697 (949)824 2489 coirrwirrwu ini tyiras61l6eirnce.u.:c6.edu.: Community r��i�iUCI However, both of these attempts came up short. Our partners in iPlo-NO! Santa Ana! reported that very few of the solutions proposed during the meetings were incorporated into the General Plan and concerns around the survey design were not addressed in the final version that was disseminated to Santa Ana residents. Ultimately, the survey suffered from poor results, receiving only 746 responses. This number does not constitute an accurate assessment of Santa Ana communities' environmental justice needs. Simply put: a survey that engages only 0.2% of residents is not good enough. iPlo-NO! Santa Ana!, along with many other residents and community stakeholders, believe that a more thorough community engagement process is needed to better inform the update to the City's General Plan. In order to ensure that the final version of the General Plan genuinely reflects the perspectives and needs of Santa Ana residents and expert community stakeholders, it is imperative that the City participate in an additional series of roundtable discussions with impacted residents and community groups such as iPlo- NO! Santa Ana!, in order to confirm their approval of the current policy language and incorporate any pending resident concerns. For these reasons, I ask you to vote to delay the adoption of the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 for Santa Ana General Plan Update. The City must take the time to engage with impacted communities to adopt specific commitments to remediating the soil -lead crisis and other environmental injustices in Santa Ana, and to implement a community review and approval process for each component in the General Plan prior to approval by the City Council. As one of the six Guiding Principles of the City of Santa Ana's Five -Year Strategic Plan, equity must not be forgotten in the General Plan process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Gregory Lopez Project Manager Community Resilience Projects University of California, Irvine cc: Abigail Reyes, Director Community Resilience Projects, University of California, Irvine Ma61Hing ddirass: c/o UII II...a r, 401. Il::::ast Il::�aftasoirn II)irve, 3u. to 1.000, Ilirv6ine, CA 92697 1.000 I::�hys6call ddirass: Suirnirneir 3ass6oirn I13' (13uH6irng 230), 3u. to 1.1.0, umU ll, Ilia ine CA 92697 (4) 324 2489coirriirriu ini tyiras61l6eirnce.uc6.edu DIANE FURTADO FRADKIN 2402 OAKMONT AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92706 (li iefracikiirC ti()tiiiail.cox December 2, 2021 Santa Ana City Council City of Santa Ana PO Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RE: 2021 General Plan Update and Program ElR Honorable Mayor and City Council: At the meeting on December 7, 2021, 1 would recommend that you direct Planning Staff to make the following revisions to the General Plan Update/Land Use Element: Designate the properties (Medical Arts & Shopping Center) at the Northwest Corner of 17#h Street and Grand Ave as a Specific Plan area; the Specific Plan would include a park component known as the "Grand Park" with surrounding retail/commercial uses (think of cafes, bike rentals, coffee shops, boutiques, weekly farmer's market, etc) along with Garden Style Apartments (2 story), Town Homes (2 and 3 stories), Urban Neighborhood Low (UN-20) 3 stories; Urban Neighborhood Medium (UN-30) 4 stories and along the frontage area closest to the intersection of 171h and Grand Ave, Urban Medium High (UN-40) 5 stories with retail/commercial on the ground floor and residential for the 4 stories above. Designate the corridor along Grand Ave north of 171h Street specifically a combination of Garden Style Apartments (2 story), Town Homes (2 and 3 stories), Urban Neighborhood Low (UN-20) 3 stories and Urban Neighborhood Medium (UN-30) 4 stories along with a retail/commercial component on the ground floor for 40% of the buildings. This provides for more variety of development than just the same Urban Neighborhood Medium (UN-30) 4 story development along this corridor. • Any area that is adjacent to Single Family Residential should only be allowed to have 2 stories abutting SFR along with a 40 foot setback ... this specific language should be included in all residential development zoning and land use definitions. Open Space and Park Space need to be a priority for this General Plan Update; I would recormend that the calculation be applied for all the General Plan Update Areas in order to provide the much needed City deficient Park Space given that the uses are being updated so it makes sense to incorporate the Park Space as well. (See attached Exhibits for specifics). I have attached a few exhibits from a Power Point presentation made by Planningy Staff .... the map shows how deficient the park land is within the City limits...,umetimps a picture is worth a thousand words... it states "Recreation as Significant Environmental Impact". This absolutely needs to be rectified and actual Park land identified, dedicated and 'built out in this General Plan Update. Please direct Staff to include this specific language. The Park Land Ratio Exhibit downgrades the amount of park land from 1.03 acres per 1,000 people to .08 acres per 1,000.....how dons this help?? Please direct Staff to keep the amount of park space at 1.03 acres per 1,000. The "Potential Policies & Actions" for the ©pen Space Element Exhibit is a good start. I would recommend that you direct Staff to incorporate this in the General Plan Update and make sure that these Policies are being followed and implemented across the board so that Park land is actually identified, dedicated and built out. Lastly, Roof Top Amenities on multi -family buildings are not open space for the public but an amenity for the residents who live in the buildings and should not be counted as open space/park space (as part of the City's deficit of open space) .. its an amenity to the tenants only, not the public. I would recommend that there is clarification in the General Plan Update about this in order to alleviate confusion and protect the actual need for Park land dedication. would be happy to further discuss my recommendations which I believe, will help shape the future of Santa Ana and in general, are good basic planning principles. I trust that you will guide Planning Staff to incorporate the above comments in order to fulfill the destiny of the General Plan Update. Thank you for your service and attention to my suggestions.. Sincerely, Diane kin 29-year resident of Santa Ana (14-914-8047 Enclosures cc: Kristine Ridge Minh Thai L nl M J O Q CA O � � a 0 E o 0 a u _ a 0. � cv ` ,tea i c QJ ri m O. L O CC E c • — ,� O w LL E ♦"/ = L L I L rZ .� -0 m 0 C E — > E -0 w cn Ln fy .0 a = '0 © Q © CC7 t6 rZ 4-.) - ci — r c aU Cy 0 4-J v - C 3 CL CU v E 4- Ln 0 E U 4- Q) Q Q) to u v� O- aA c �. ° p 0 a o a o� cu - � u _0 L rts A. ay � -0 Q M 4-.+ as C ra d � . .... v -0 (3) 4-J u ro Q E 0 .2 v a Dale Helvig Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706 December 7, 2021 Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81" Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Santa Ana's "Golden City Beyond: A Shared Vision" General Plan is a policy document that will guide the City's development and conservation for the next 25 years through 2045. KEE P TH I S I S M I N D Subject: COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — LAND USE ELEMENT LAND USE ELEMENT The purpose of the Land Use Element is to provide a long-range guide for the physical development of the city, reflecting the community's vision for a high quality of life. [page LU-01]. ITEM 1 INTRODUCTION If we can use 2020 data for determining number of employees (160,000) we should be able to use 2020 date for residents. Even the 2015 data is higher than what is reflected in the introduction. Population should be updated to the 2020 census data. Not knowing what changes to the Municipal Code are planned makes it hard to come to any conclusion. They should be provided prior to approving the General Plan. ITEM 2 POLICY LU-1.3 EQUITABLE CREATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF OPEN SPACE Policy states: "Promote the creation of new open space and community -serving amenities in park - deficient areas that keeps pace with the increase in multi -unit housing development, with priority given to those that are also within environmental justice area boundaries. Show me where in this element how the creation of new open space will be achieved. ITEM 3 POLICY LU-2.9 OPEN SPACE NEEDS [page LU-05] What is being done to support this policy? Furthermore, the Citywide total increase of housing units is listed at 36,261 units. If Policy OS-1.3 were to be followed, and using the cities 2045 population buildout of over 96,000 residents, the City would need to add over 192 acres of park space to maintain an already deficient ratio. Where is this land or how is this going to be "achieved", as stated in Policy OS-1.3? Page 1 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ITEM 4 FOCUS AREAS [page LU-26] Why are we hanging our hat on the Five focus areas identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee and refined by City staff as the areas of the city most suitable for new development? I ask this because the Focus Area for Grand and 17t" was revised AFTER the June 2019 community meeting JUNE 2019 Existing Plans and Focus Areas r "IsIll Focus Areas West Sang Ana Boulevard SS Dyer South Grand/ 17th South Main South Bristol Street DRAFT PROPOSAL extends area north to the 22 freeway, south past the 5 freeway to 1st street and west to Lincoln. Not what the General Plan Advisory Committee recommended. H�VK LWIT LA.D un-1 GWO nY&i wZ IPH STA As stated on page LU-26, these focus areas are for new development. The Land Use Element is silent on the addition of open space. Page 2 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ITEM 5 Figure LU-8 ARTIST RENDERING SOUTH MAIN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AT KEY INTERSECTION [page LU-33] Why is a 4-story building shown when nothing along this corridor is being designated for 4-stories? FIGURE LU-8 ARTIST RENDERING SOUTH MAIN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AT KEY INTERSECTION r Page 3 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com GRAND/17T" STREET FOCUS AREA [continued] ITEM 6 The five focus areas do nothing but replace General Commercial and Professional /Administrative Office with up -zoning designations. I think it is safe to say this is nothing more than increasing the already high -density housing in Santa Ana. For a vision of the city, it lacks the vision necessary to ensure the City of Santa Ana receives the necessary development AND open space the residents of Santa Ana deserve. BEFORE: AFTER: ML _.t.. f - -- u. i.. � ....a. , -- .. - `t ^ I -I Esc. c�:a.,sa is • . ... _ ' K.,m-.•. �. `1ST L- A`tsx4• � f 0_1 —J- 17th & Grand Ave- f. _ _n�� ,� Ylth &Grand Ave - What is being proposed will drive people to other communities for shopping due to increased traffic and the inability to conveniently park outside a business. While I agree Grand Avenue needs attention, the desire by the city to designate the land use to Urban Neighborhood or District Center is unacceptable. It removes current land use designations that support churches, government offices, schools, electrical substations, single-family homes and multi -family homes. Proposed changes just make it easier for developers. The other Focus areas are in the same situation. Page 4 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com GRAND/17TH STREET FOCUS AREA [continued] GRAND AVENUE AND 17TH STREET [page LU-40] Travel on Grand Avenue during the morning or evening rush hour time slots. Just imagine the negative impact that will be created when 1722 housing units, approximately 4000 residents are added. I challenge the need to reclassify all these areas in this focus area, some but not all. From page LU40: "Notes: The focus area also includes a nominal amount of land used by railroad operations and mapped with the Open Space land use designation." I can't believe the city will be reclassifying this area as open space. Is the city not concerned about human safety? 17TH ST Just some food for thought... Number of Housing Unit Increase added Units [In Percent] South Main Street 588 34.2 Grand Avenue/17th Street 1722 306.0 West Santa Ana Blvd. 1262 47.5 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 8731 715.0 South Bristol Street 5272 2396.0 Page 5 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com L ITEM 7 Page LU-42: "Four-story buildings should be compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods." How is this even considered to be compatible? Current land uses made this a reality, proposed land use remove this buffer zone? ITEM 8 Page LU-43: Comments 1) The General Plan should not be including photos of resident vehicles with license plates, 2) inserting a picture of a five -story structure where it is proposed to be only four stories, 3) Saying, "Careful landscaping provides a transition between single-family homes and adjacent urban neighborhood lots." (four-story next to single family homes). How is this possible when there will be a single-family home next to a four story? What is this "careful landscaping" that will cover a 50 height? ITEM 9 Page LU-44: Figure LU-14 ARTIST RENDERING Artist rendering, really? This building does not conform to the proposed land use. Insert something similar to what is found on page LU-43. FIGURE LU-13 ARTIST RENDERING FIGURE LU•14 ARTIST RENDERING NEW OF 4, STORY GRAND AND I7TH IJR'BAN NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ADIA(g3.1T NBGHEORHOOD GRAND AND 17TH JR" NEPGHBORHOQD At MAJOR IMERSE010" 1 ACTIVATE KEY INTERSECTI0f1S commar—I uses may wrap around the corner, transinomng from more urban areas to lower - den srtY homes. @LANDSCAPE HREENING @NIPGHT■MASSING Step•6acks In taller buildings Lmnslnon between existing to densrty neighborhoods and nr hrgher-densrty development. UFY OF SA11rrA ANA GENERA[. PLAN .1 Page 6 of 9 . 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ITEM 10 According to the USA.com website Santa Ana now the 41" most dense city in the nation for cities over 130,000 people the densest city in the state. Being number one is not always a good thing. We should not exacerbate the problem by continuing to add urban neighborhoods throughout the city. We should be campaigning in Sacramento seeking relief. USK'Fcom. Local Data Search SearCh State, County, City, Zrp Code, or Area Carle I U.S. population Density City Rank with population more than 130,000 Atotal of 199 results found. Show Results oil neap. 1" Rank Population Density s City 1 Population 1. 17,833.91sq mi New York NY 18,354,889 ■ 2. 16,812.5/sq mi Paterson NJ 1146.341 3. 12,137.81sq mi Jersey iN, NJ / 255,861 4. 12.038.2/sq mi Santa Ana CA 1331.266 5. 11.586.71sq mi Chicago It_ 12,712,608 6- 10.839.81sq mi Philadelphia PA11,546.920 7. 10.677.21sq mi Nei°nark. ICJ 1278.750 8. 10.171.4isq mi Hialeah. FL / 232.311 F 9. %787.61sq mi Yonkers NY 1198,654 10. 9.680.6/sq mi 3aY�Ien Grove, CA1173,853 ITEM 11 Page LU 54: 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD FOCUS AREA The intent of the 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD focus area is "to create opportunities for a truly urban lifestyle with easy access to Downtown Santa Ana, multiple transit options, and the new investments and amenities in adjacent communities" There is no vision/description/discussion of multiple transit option. This would be a good place to discuss the extension of the OC street car. ITEM 12 Page LU 56: Figure LU-18 LAND USE MAP 55 FREEWAY AND DYER ROAD Adding 6-10 story mix of residential, live -work, commercial, hotel Office/industrial flex spaces over the John Wayne flight path is an accident waiting to happen. An accident that could bankrupt the city. ITEM 13 Pages -ALL: Where is the discussion about businesses that will be displaced by focus area modifications? Page 7 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ITEM 14 IMPLEMENTATION The Land Use Element does not address the absence of 200 acres of parkland and the profound impact this will have on the physical, social, mental, and economic health and well-being of Santa Ana residents. ITEM 15 GENERAL COMMENTS Why were areas north of the 1-5 Freeway excluded from the environmental justice consideration? Homes next to the freeway in the communities of Mabury Park, Grand Sunrise and Park Santiago are areas that have environmental issues as well. There is lead in the soil, as well as other pollutants. Heavy particulates and noise concerns are also an issue due to the proximity to the freeway. In summary, I see don't see much meat in General Plan. Although a tremendous amount of effort has been spent on this project, I see the General Plan as a blueprint for development rather than a vision for the City of Santa Ana. The draft vision of the city to strive to maintain the parkland space is not even met. With the buildout population increase of over 96,000 people, just to maintain the current deficient ratio of 1 acre per 1000 residents we need to have a vision of 192 of additional parkland space. Notice the 2045 vision for increased parkland space is ZERO. Page 8 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com The introduction to the Open Space Element states: "Open space is so important that its presence (or absence) can profoundly shape the physical, social, mental, and economic health and well-being of our communities." Let's live by those words and address this is the Land Use Element. The General Plan Update should reflect the vision of the community and not read so much as a developer's handbook. We deserve the "Shared Vision"for Santa Ana. Too much emphasis is being placed on the focus areas and not enough on the rest of the City. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy. Respectfully, U�a.,4. It Dale A Helvig Resident, Santa Ana cc: Kristine Ridge City Manager, Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho City Attorney, Santa Ana Fabiola Melicher Manager, Planning Lisa Rudloff Executive Director, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency Page 9 of 9 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Land Use Element Dale Helvig Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706 December 7, 2021 Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81" Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Santa Ana's "Golden City Beyond: A Shared Vision" General Plan is a policy document that will guide the City's development and conservation for the next 25 years through 2045. KEEP THIS IS MIND Subject: COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The purpose of the Open Space Element is to identify and preserve open space areas that provide value to the community and enrich the quality of life. [page OS-1]. GOAL OS-1: Parks, Open Space, and Recreation ITEM 1 POLICY OS-1.3 PARK STANDARD If you compare the previous General Plan and even the draft that was circulated in 2020, you will see that the vision for the next 25 years has been diluted. We are moving backwards by saying "Strive to attain a minimum of two acres of park land per 1,000 residents in the City" versus the old language of "Achieve a minimum park standard of two acres per 1,000 residents in the city." The 25-year plan will not be effective if we start off with weak language. ITEM 2 POLICY OS-1.4 PARK DISTRIBUTION and POLICY OS-1.5 PARK AND OPEN SPACE TYPES These two policies have the same exact text. This appears to be a block and copy error and it should be corrected. ITEM 3 POLICY OS-1.8 LAND ACQUISITION AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Proposed policy statement reads in part: "Explore options for the acquisition of available lands...". I suggest the city add language so the existing parks, open space, greenways and trail corridors areas are preserved. The city can't move forward if they don't protect these already limited resources. While reference to "No -net -loss of parkland" can be found in the implementation it also be a part of the policy. Concerning Willowick, where will the city acquire land to ensure no -net -loss of parkland should it be sold? Page 1 of 5 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Open Space Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ITEM 4 POLICY OS-1.11 FUNDING SOURCES "Set aside park funding to have monies on hand to acquire and develop parkland when opportunities arise and to leverage grant options." The city should take a proactive step and identify areas within the city that can be earmarked for parkland areas. Saying this will be covered by the Park Master Plan is not the same as having something in the General Plan. One can have vast amounts of funds but it means nothing if we allow commercial and residential development to buy up all available space. ITEM 5 Table OS-1. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES [page OS-8] The Note at the bottom of the table states: "The list of parks and acreage figures are accurate as of August 2020. All figures are subject to rounding." I recommend you take another look at the numbers. All areas are shown with two significant digits yet the subtotals are shown with either one or two significant digits. Check your math, the total parks/rec facilities acreage adds up to 409.65 acres versus the 409.2 acres shown, not much of a difference but every bit is important for a park deficient city. ITEM 6 Figure OS-2 WALKING DISTANCE TO PARK FACILITIES The key at the bottom of the page says: "Walking Distance From Existing or Proposed Park". Where are the proposed parks? Additionally, the area depicting the % mile around parks is inaccurate [look at Portola Park and Santiago Park]. ITEM 7 GOAL OS-2: Healthy, Safe and Inclusive Opportunities POLICY OS-2.4 URBAN AGRICULTURE AND HEALTHY FOODS "Expand urban agriculture opportunities in private development and public spaces." Language could be added to establish community gardens, or other public benefit use, on vacant/abandoned city property. ITEM 8 GOAL OS-3: Park Maintenance, Stewardship, and Sustainability POLICY OS-3.8 NATURALIZING THE SANTA ANA RIVER Request this be expanded to include the Santiago Creek. ITEM 9 Table OS-2. RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES [page OS-15] TYPO. "Goal OS-1, for example, is supported not only by the policies listed in this element (OS-1.1 through OS-3.6)". Should be "...through OS-3.8)" TYPO. Open Space Goal OS-1 is not accurate, it has the words found in the 2020 draft versus what is listed in the 2021 draft. It should say. "Provide an integrated system of accessible parks, recreation facilities, trails, and open space to serve the City of Santa Ana." Page 2 of 5 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Open Space Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com IF ITEM 10 Table OS-3. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION There should be at least a one-to-one correlation between a policy and an implementation action. This should be clearly identified in Table OS-3. Example: POLICY OS-1.6 PARK ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY says it will "Create a Safe Routes to Parks program that establishes and enhances access to existing and new parks and recreation facilities through safe walking, bicycling, and transit routes." This has nothing to do with implementation item 1.6. which is listed as "Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by the City's Residential Development Fee Ordinance and adjust them to better reflect current costs and needs. Update requirements regarding where fees are spent. I consider this a fatal flaw in the process that needs to be fixed in all elements. ITEM 11 Table OS-2. RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES OS-3: Park Maintenance, Stewardship, and Sustainability lacks any input/link to the Land Use Element. ITEM 12 OS-1.4 Implementation Action [page OS-16] Is Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency really the correct agency to make this happen? Action 1.4 states: "No -net -loss of parkland. Establish land use provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of public parkland in the city." Require at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to public or private development." ITEM 13 OS-1.7 Implementation Action [page OS-17] "...Consider allowing developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for park development or the provision of private park land. Incentivize the creation of public parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas. This is written for developer's consideration rather than the residents of Santa Ana. GENERAL COMMENTS ITEM 14 1. Why were areas north of the 1-5 Freeway excluded from the environmental justice consideration? Homes next to the freeway in the communities of Mabury Park, Grand Sunrise and Park Santiago are inedited with black particulate and noise as much as other areas that are impacted by the freeway. ITEM 15 2. Having words like consider, strive and in policy statements leaves a lot of wiggle room in trying to meet the objectives. ITEM 16 3. A small sampling of these changes revealed that errors exist between the PEIR and the General Plan Update. For me personally, I don't know which document to believe. This must be corrected so the Planning Commission, the public and eventually the City Council understand what is correct: Page 3 of 5 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Open Space Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com In summary, I see don't see much meat in General Plan. Although a tremendous amount of effort has been spent on this project, I see the General Plan as a blueprint for development rather than a vision for the City of Santa Ana. The draft vision of the city to strive to maintain the parkland space is not even met. With the buildout population increase of over 96,000 people, just to maintain the current deficient ratio of 1 acre per 1000 residents we need to have a vision of 192 of additional parkland space. Notice the 2045 vision for increased parkland space is ZERO. The introduction to the Open Space Element states: "Open space is so important that its presence (or absence) can profoundly shape the physical, social, mental, and economic health and well-being of our communities." Let's live by those words. The General Plan Update should reflect the vision of the community and not read so much as a developer's handbook. We deserve the "Shared Vision"for Santa Ana. State Sen. Dave Min (D- Irvine) was quoted as saying', "Open space preservation is smart policy, which not only supports our sustainability efforts but also improves the quality of life for our residents and brings our community together." Irvine has the right idea and we can benefit if we copy them. 1 SUNDAY, AUGUST 15, 2021, Times OC Page 4 of 5 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Open Space Element Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com Too much emphasis is being placed on the focus areas and not enough on the rest of the City. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy. Respectfully, Dale A Helvig Resident, Santa Ana cc: Kristine Ridge City Manager, Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho City Attorney, Santa Ana Fabiola Melicher Manager, Planning Lisa Rudloff Executive Director, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency Page 5 of 5 2021-12-07 Letter to City Council - GP Comments on Open Space Element October 6, 2021 Via Email Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 vsarmiento(&- Santa-ana.org, whan(&- Santa-ana.org, dpenaloza&Santa-ana.org, jessielopez(&- Santa-ana.M, pbacerra&Santa-ana.org, jryanhernandez(&- Santa-ana.org, nmendoza(rc�7,santa-ana.org Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update Open Space Element Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Councilmembers Phan, Penaloza, Lopez, Bacerra, Hernandez, and Mendoza: Rise Up Willowick appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana's August 2021 draft General Plan Update ("the Update"). A memo to the Planning Commission on the Update's Open Space Element is attached as Exhibit A.' We previously submitted comments on an earlier draft of the Update in an October 6, 2020 letter to City planning staff, attached as Exhibit B, and a November 9, 2020 letter to the Planning Commission, attached as Exhibit C. Those earlier comments remain relevant to the draft Update and are hereby incorporated by reference. The policies and implementation actions in the Update's Open Space Element seek to avoid loss of parkland and create new public parkland, prioritizing currently underserved areas and requiring private developments to create public open space. We commend the City for revising these measures in response to public comments received on the previous draft Update. However, the Open Space Element still falls short in several respects. 1 These comments do not discuss the adequacy of the Update's accompanying Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("RDPEIR") under the California Environmental Quality Act, which is addressed in a separate letter to City planning staff submitted on behalf of Rise Up Willowick by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. Santa Ana City Council October 6, 2021 Page 2 Most importantly, the City's standard of two acres of parks per 1,000 residents is not sufficient to meet the needs of City residents and is much less than the ratio of parkland to residents in other comparable jurisdictions. The City should increase its park standard from two to three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City does not meet its current, low standard, and under the Update the total "parkland deficiency" is projected to increase further, from 118.14 acres to 299.48 acres at build -out unless the City develops new parks. RDPEIR at 5.15-28. In order to address this parkland deficiency and meet the needs of City residents, the City needs more ambitious policies to facilitate parkland creation. The City should increase the Open Space Element's park standard to a ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents, and should amend the Municipal Code to reflect this standard. In addition, as outlined in the attached memo, we urge the City to revise the Open Space Element to: (1) define the terms "parks," "parkland," "open space," "park deficient area" and "environmental justice area," (2) apply the "no net loss" policy to open space as well as to parkland and strengthen provisions on replacement of lost open space, (3) increase parkland dedication requirements for new development projects in order to meet the City's enhanced park standard, (4) extend parkland dedication requirements to a broader range of market -rate development projects, (5) require that parkland created by dedication be located within a half -mile walking distance of the associated development, and (6) include more specific incentive mechanisms to create new parkland, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas. The attached memo suggests language for General Plan policies and implementation actions that would address each of these issues. We respectfully request that the City revise the Open Space Element to reflect these proposals. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Rise Up Willowick Cynthia Guerra Santa Ana City Council October 6, 2021 Page 3 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A: Rise Up Willowick, Comments to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission re: Proposed Changes to Open Space Element of City of Santa Ana General Plan Update, September 15,2021. Exhibit B: Letter from Rise Up Willowick to Verny Carvajal re: Comments on Santa Ana General Plan Update DPEIR, October 6, 2020. Exhibit C: Letter from Rise Up Willowick to the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission re: Santa Ana General Plan Update EIR, November 9, 2020. cc: General Plan Email: newgeneraIpIan&santa-aq ".or Public Comment Email: ecomments(&- santa-ana.org Planning Dept. Director Minh Tai: mthai&santa-ana.M Principal Planner Melanie McCann: mmccann(&-santa-ana.org Planning Commissioners: mmcIoughIin&santa-ana.org; tmorrissey&santa-an ",or eaIderete(&-santa-ana.org; mcalderon(&-santa-ana.org; bI)ham(&-santa-ana.org; iramos&santa-ana.org; awoo&santa-ana.org 1424743.1 EXHIBIT A TO: City of Santa Ana Planning Commission FROM: Rise Up Willowick DATE: September 15, 2021 RE: Proposed Changes to Open Space Element of City of Santa Ana General Plan Update Rise Up Willowick proposes the following changes and additions to the Open Space Element of the City of Santa Ana's August 2021 draft General Plan Update. 1. Definitions of Key Terms The Open Space Element lacks definitions for key terms used in several policies and implementation actions involving parks and open space. These definitions are needed to clarify the scope and effects of those policies and actions. We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define "parks" and "parkland" with reference to the Municipal Code's existing definition of "parks": As used in the Open Space Element, "parks" and "parkland" have the same meaning as "parks" as defined in Municipal Code Section 31-1 (4). We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define "open space" as follows: As used in the Open Space Element, "open space" means "any publicly -accessible parcel or area of land or water, whether publicly or privately -owned, that is reserved for the purpose of preserving natural resources, for the protection of valuable environmental features, or for providing outdoor recreation or education." We propose amending the Municipal Code to include this definition of "open space," which is not currently defined in the code. We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define "park deficient area" as follows: Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 2 As used in the Open Space Element, "park deficient area" means "a geographic area which is located more than 0.25 miles from the nearest public park of 5 acres or less and more than 0.5 miles from the nearest public park larger than 5 acres as measured along the shortest available pedestrian route." This is a modified version of the definition used in the August 2021 Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDPEIR) for the General Plan Update. RDPEIR at 5.15-12, 5.15-13.1 We propose modifying the Open Space Element to define "environmental justice area" as follows: As used in the Open Space Element, "environmental justice area" means "a disadvantaged community as defined by Government Code Section 65302(h)(4)(A), i.e. a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation, or an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code." This definition of "environmental justice area" is consistent with the RDPEIR, which references SB 1000's definition of "disadvantaged community." Gov. Code § 65 3 02(h)(4)(A); RDPEIR at 4.15-4.16, 5.15-12, 5.15-15. The California Environmental Protection Agency has identified 23 census tracts in Santa Ana as environmental justice communities because they have received a California Communities Environmental Health Screening (CalEnviroScreen) composite score greater than 75 percent. RDPEIR at 2-19, 4-15 . 2. Proposed Addition of "No Net Loss of Open Space" Policy in General Plan Update We propose the addition of a "no net loss of open space" policy in the Open Space Element: Policy OS-1.14: No Net Loss of Open Space. There shall be no net loss of Open Space in the city, excluding any acreage of a golf course that is redeveloped solely for 100% below -market rate housing. Any Open Space lost due to development shall be replaced at a ratio of at least 1:1. 1 The RDPEIR maps park deficient areas using aerial linear distances to the closest park, rather than actual on -the -ground walking distances, which are typically longer due to a lack of direct routes. We propose using on -the -ground walking distances. Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 3 Although the Open Space Element already includes a "no net loss of parkland" implementation action (discussed below), the "no net loss" concept is so important and fundamental that it should be articulated as a policy as well. Moreover, given the shortage of both parks and open space in the City, this policy should apply to all open space, not merely to parkland. The City already has a "parkland deficiency" of 118.14 acres, which is expected to increase to 299.48 acres under the Update unless new parks are built. RDPEIR at 5.15-28. Non -park open space provides an important supplemental recreational resource, and can potentially be developed into parkland in the future. The City cannot afford to lose any of its existing parkland or open space acreage. 3. Proposed Changes to the Update's "No Net Loss" Implementation Action The draft Open Space Element currently includes this provision: Implementation Action [OS-] 1.4: No -net -loss of parkland. Establish land use provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of public parkland in the city. Require at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to public or private development. City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update, Open Space Element, at 16. The City proposes to enact the no -net -loss ordinance in 2022; the City's Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (PRCSA) would be responsible. We commend the City for including this "no net loss" implementation action in the Update. However, as explained above, this provision should apply to all open space, not only to parkland. The implementation action should specify that net loss of open space will be avoided by prohibiting development that causes such a net loss. Moreover, the provision should clarify that replacement parks and open space must be located within 0.5 miles of the lost parks and open space, to ensure that the replacements serve the same communities. Finally, the implementation action should require that development of replacement parks and open space occur before the closure of the lost parks or open space. This will ensure that there is not a lag or "gap" in time where communities lose park or open space access if the replacement process is delayed. We propose modifying Open Space Element Implementation Action OS-1.4 to read as follows: Implementation Action OS-1.4: No Net Loss of pairk! +nd Open Space. Establish land use provisions in the Municipal Code that pfevent-prohibit development that causes a net loss of r„blie pafk aP Open Space in the city, including City parks as well as other public and private land designated as Open Space under the General Plan or the zoning code, but excluding an. acreageof a golf course that is Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 4 redeveloped solely for 100% below -market rate housing_ Require that any loss of Open Space be replaced at a ratio of at least a-1:1 of public parkland due to public of pFiyate development., that loss of public parks be replaced by new public parks, and that replacement Open Space (including public parks) be located within 0.5 miles walking distance from the lost Open Space. Require that a plan for replacement, including specific location of replacement land, be approved before or as part of approval of any project that would change the use of existing parks or Open Space. Require that development of replacement parks or Open Space occur prior to the closure or redevelopment of the lost parks or Open Space. 4. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element's "Park Standard" The draft Open Space Element currently includes this "park standard" policy: Policy OS-1.3: Park Standard. Establish and maintain public open space and recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Strive to attain a minimum of two acres of park land per 1,000 residents in the City. City of Santa Ana Draft General Plan Update, Open Space Element, at 5. This parkland - to -resident standard is already reflected in Municipal Code Section 35-108(a), which provides that "[d]evelopment of parks within the city will require the construction of park and recreation facilities sufficient to provide two (2) acres of such facilities per one thousand (1,000) population in the city." The August 2021 RDPEIR for the General Plan Update acknowledges that the City currently does not meet this per -resident standard, and under the Update the total "parkland deficiency" is projected to increase further, from 118.14 acres to 299.48 acres at build -out unless additional parks are provided. RDPEIR at 5.15-28. The City's standard of two acres of parks per 1,000 residents is not sufficient to meet the needs of City residents and is much less than the ratio of parkland to residents in other jurisdictions. According to the National Recreation and Park Association, the typical jurisdiction has a median of 9.9 of acres of parkland for every 1,0000 residents, while jurisdictions of more than 250,000 people (like Santa Ana) have a median of 10.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.' Nationally, the bottom quartile of jurisdictions over 250,000 people have a median of 5.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. ' National Recreation and Park Association, NRPA Agency Performance Review 8 (2020), 1_1 jps,// AA.g Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 5 The City's parkland standard is also less than the standard set out in the Quimby Act, Government Code section 66477, which allows cities to require that subdivisions dedicate parkland sufficient to provide up to three acres of park area per 1,000 subdivision residents. Moreover, Policy OS-1.3 has been weakened from the version included in the 2020 draft Update. While the previous draft policy called for the City to "achieve" a park ratio of two acres per 1,000 people (2020 Draft Open Space Element at 5; Final Environmental Impact Report at 2-17), the new draft merely says the City will "strive to attain" that standard. Open Space Element at 5. Given the importance of addressing the City's park deficiency, the policy's language should be mandatory. We therefore propose revising Policy OS-1.3 to read as follows: Policy OS-1.3: Park Standard. Establish and maintain public open space and recreation requirements for new residential and nonresidential development to provide sufficient opportunities for Santa Ana residents and visitors. Stfive to attain The City shall achieve a minimum citywide park ratio of two hree acres of pff44apA-per 1,000 residents in the City. For new residential development in Focus Areas, the Ci . shall prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees. We also propose that the Update include an additional implementation action calling for the City to amend the Municipal Code to reflect this standard: Implementation Action OS- 1.16. Park Standard. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV to require that the City achieve a minimum citywide park ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents. 5. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element's Policies on Parkland Creation and Distribution The Open Space Element currently includes the following policies relating to parkland creation and distribution: Policy OS-1.4. Park Distribution. Ensure the City residents have access to public or private parks, recreation facilities, or trails within a 10 minute walking and biking distance of home. Prioritize park provision, programs, and partnerships in park deficient an[d] environmental justice areas. Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 6 RDPEIR at 5.15-20.3 Policy OS-1.8. Land Acquisition and Equitable Distribution. Explore options for the acquisition of available lands for parks, open space, greenways and trail corridors, with priority given to sites that are within park deficient or environmental justice areas. Open Space Element at 6. Rise Up Willowick supports the Policy's stated goal of more equitable park distribution in park deficient and environmental justice areas. We commend the City for including Policy OS-1.4 and Policy OS-1.8. However, Policy OS-1.4 should use a 0.5 mile walking distance to measure park proximity, a more objective metric than a 10- minute walking distance, which varies depending on a pedestrian's physical capabilities. Policy OS-1.8 should direct the City to acquire new parkland, not merely to "explore options" for doing so. We propose strengthening and clarifying these policies as follows: Policy OS-1.4. Park Distribution. Ensure die —that all City residents have access to public sparks, recreation facilities, e--and trails within a 10 miftute .5 mile walking and biking distance of their homes. Prioritize park provision, programs, and partnerships in park deficient and environmental justice areas. Policy OS-1.8. Land Acquisition and Equitable Distribution. the aequisition Acquire available lands for parks, open space, greenways and trail corridors, with priority given to sites that are within park deficient ef�-and environmental justice areas. The Open Space Element includes the following provision regarding park -deficient areas: Policy OS- 1.10. Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in neighborhoods where 3 There is an error in the draft General Plan Update, which replaces Policy OS-1.4 with language identical to Policy OS-1.5 ("Provide a mix of community, neighborhood, and special use parks, along with greenway corridors, natural areas, and landscape areas, to meet community needs for greenspace, recreation space, social space, and trail connectivity"), thus repeating the same policy twice. We assume that the version of Policy OS-1.4 provided in the RDPEIR (quoted above) contains the correct language. Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 7 traditional parks are not feasible. Encourage public, private, and commercial recreational facilities in areas that are park deficient. Open Space Element at 6. While we support the use of "creative solutions" to address park deficiencies, Policy OS-1.10 requires clarification. We are concerned by the suggestion that there are neighborhoods where "traditional parks are not feasible." The City's long term goal should be to provide public parkland in all park -deficient areas. Moreover, this policy should be revised to make clear that while private or commercial recreational facilities can be a valuable community resource, they are never a substitute for public parkland. The City should not abandon efforts to create public parks in park -deficient areas merely because those areas contain private or commercial recreational facilities. Such private facilities do not always serve the communities in which they are located and do not provide the spectrum of activities that public parks do. For example, some private recreational facilities (such as golf courses) can exclude lower -income people, and thus could fail to serve residents in surrounding neighborhoods. We propose modifying Policy OS- 1.10 as follows: Policy OS- 1.10. Creative Solutions for Deficiencies. Develop creative and flexible solutions to provide greenspace and recreation activities in park -deficient neighborhoods .,.he fe tfaditional rafks afe of feasible. Prioritize public parks and recreational facilities in park -deficient areas. Encourage publie, private, —and commercial recreational facilities in aFeas tha4 aFe park defieien that are open to the public, are physically accessible and affordable to residents of surrounding neighborhoods, and serve communi . needs. The Open Space Element also includes the following implementation action regarding new parkland: Implementation Action 1.10: New parkland. Coordinate with property owners to explore options to provide public access and programming in park deficient areas, including options to acquire land through purchase, land dedication, easements, and land leases that would allow for permanent or temporary use of land for recreational opportunities. Open Space Element at 17. Like Policy OS-1.8, Implementation Action 1.10 should direct the City to acquire new parkland. It should prioritize creation of new permanent public parkland. Other temporary mechanisms can be a helpful supplement. However, these mechanisms will not provide the same level of permanent public benefits or allow the same range of public Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 8 uses. They are therefore not a substitute for permanent public parkland. The City should not rely on privately -owned open space to increase recreational opportunities in park - deficient areas. We propose revising this provision as follows: Implementation Action 1.10: New parkland. Create new public parkland in park - deficient areas via purchase or land dedication. In addition, Ccoordinate with property owners to exploFe ^"f'^„sto provide public access and programming on privately -owned open space in park deficient areas, inel ding ^r*�^„� land gh pumbase dedi�o�and obtain easements, -and or land leases that would allow for permanent or temporary up blic use of land -such open space for recreational appai4tinifies. 6. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element's Policy on New Development The Open Space Element currently includes the following policy on new development: Policy OS-1.9: New Development. Ensure all new development effectively integrates parks, open space, and pedestrian and multi -modal travelways to promote a quality living environment. For new development within park deficient and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees. Open Space Element at 6. We propose revising this policy to clarify that new developments must create public parkland via the mechanisms described in Implementation Actions OS- 1.6 and OS-1.7 in order to meet the citywide park standard set in Policy OS-1.3: Policy OS-1.9: New Development. Require that Ensure all new development provide adequate parks and open space, including via parkland dedication or development fees, in order to meet the City's park standard. Ensure that new development includes pedestrian and multi - modal travelways to promote a quality living environment. For new development within park deficient and environmental justice areas, prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees. 7. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element's Development Fee Requirements The draft Open Space Element currently includes the following provision: Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 9 Implementation Action [OS-] 1.6. Development fees. Evaluate the fees required by the City's Acquisition and Development Ordinance and adjust them to better reflect current costs and needs. Update requirements regarding where fees are spent. Open Space Element at 16. The City proposes to implement the action in 2022. Implementation Action 1.6 has been modified from the version in the previous 2020 draft Update, and is now much less specific than before. That earlier version (previously Implementation Action 1.8) called for the City to [c]onsider updating the City's Acquisition and Development Ordinance to better reflect current costs and needs by increasing the parkland dedication requirement, and require that fees collected in place of parkland dedication for specific development projects be utilized to acquire, expand, or improve facilities within the same quadrant or geographic subarea (as defined in the Parks Master Plan) as the project for which the fee was collected. 2020 Draft Open Space Element at 15. The more specific language in the earlier version of the implementation action should be retained in order to strengthen the City's development fee program. In particular, development fees should be used to provide new parkland in the same neighborhood impacted by the development. That geographic limitation should be based on walking distance from the development project (the same approach used for the park dedication requirements in Implementation Action OS-1.7), rather than "quadrant or geographic subarea." We propose revising Implementation Action OS-1.6 as follows: Implementation Action OS-1.6. Development fees. Evaluate the fees FequiFed by Update the City's Acquisition and Development Ordinance and adjust them to bettef fetleet etfffent eosts andneeds. Update -to increase the parkland dedication requirements f-e-ga ding w-hefe roes afe spent -for new development projects consistent with the dedication requirements specified in Implementation Action OS-1.7. Require that fees collected in place of parkland dedication for specific development projects be utilized to acquire, expand, or improve facilities within 0.5 miles walking distance from the project for which the fee was collected. 8. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element's Parkland Dedication Requirement The Open Space Element currently includes the following provision: Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 10 Implementation Action [OS-] 1.7. Public parkland requirements for larger residential projects. Update the Residential Development Fee Ordinance for Larger Residential Projects to require public parkland within a 10-minute walking distance of the new residential projects. Consider allowing developers a reduction in on -site open space by giving credits for park development or the provision of private park land. Incentivize the creation of public parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas. Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space, such as exploring housing density bonus options for the provision of open space as a public benefit and leverage Residential Development fee to partner with developers to create public open space. Open Space Element at 17. The City proposes to implement the action in 2022. Implementation Action 1.7 has been modified extensively from the version included in the previous 2020 draft Update, with many of the specifics have been deleted. The earlier version (formerly Implementation Action 1.15) provided: Implementation Action 1.15. Public parkland requirements for larger residential projects. Amend the Residential Development Fee in the Municipal Code (Chapter 35, Article IV) to reflect requirements for Larger Residential Projects (100+ units, residential only or mixed -use) to facilitate the creation two acres of new public parkland within a 10-minute walking radius of the new residential project. Establish provisions that allow the Larger Residential Projects to reduce all onsite private and common open space requirements by 50 percent if new public parkland is provided within a 10 minute walking radius and by 80 percent if the new public parkland is immediately adjacent to or on the residential project property. Work with property owners and new development projects within the Focus Areas to identify options (e.g., 100 percent reduction of onsite private and public open space requirements) that would incentivize the creation of public park areas that are more than the minimum and/or if a location can expand park access for an adjoining underserved neighborhood and/or environmental justice area. Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space. 2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The new draft weakens the Update by replacing much of the action's detail with general statements. The more detailed version should be restored, with further changes as outlined below. The Santa Ana Municipal Code already requires that subdivision map approvals for residential subdivisions of more than 50 parcels dedicate parkland sufficient to Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 11 provide two acres of park area per 1,000 people residing in the subdivision. The Quimby Act, Government Code section 66477, authorizes more than that, allowing cities to require that subdivisions dedicate parkland sufficient to provide up to three acres of park area per 1,000 subdivision residents. We propose modifying Implementation Action OS-1.7 to use all the authority the Quimby Act gives the City. It should require that subdivision dedications of parkland be sufficient to achieve a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In addition, we suggest modifying Action OS-1.7 to require that new > 80% market -rate, non - subdivision developments of 100 or more units dedicate three acres of new public parkland, and that > 80% market -rate non -subdivision developments of 50 to 99 units dedicate two acres of public parkland. These changes will help to address the City's parkland deficit, meet the General Plan's parkland standard, and promote equitable park access. We also suggest changing the limit on the location of dedicated parkland from a "10-minute walking radius" of the development, a subjective measure that varies depending on a pedestrian's physical capabilities, to a 0.5-mile walking radius, a more objective metric. The revised Implementation Action would read as follows: Implementation Action OS-1.7. Public parklands requirements feiF lafger- disc nee f the r fesidential r eets. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article VIII to require that subdivision map approvals for residential subdivisions of more than 50 parcels dedicate parkland sufficient to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 people residing in the subdivision, consistent with Policy OS-1.3. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 35, Article IV to require that projects including 100+ residential units that are 80 percent market -rate or more and do not require a subdivision dedicate three acres of new public parkland concurrent with the completion of and within a 0.5-mile walking radius of the new residential project, and to require non -subdivision projects of 50 to 99 residential units that are 80 percent market -rate or more to dedicate two acres of public parkland concurrent with the completion of and within a 0.5 mile walking radius of the project. Establish provisions that allow these projects to reduce all onsite private and common open space requirements by 50 percent if new public parkland is provided within a 0.5-mile walking radius and by 80 percent if the new public parkland is immediately adjacent to or on the residential project property. To the greatest extent possible, parkland created via this dedication process shall be located in park -deficient neighborhoods and environmental justice areas. Incentivize the creation of public Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 12 parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas. Establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential project (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space, such as a housing density bonus for the provision of open space as a public benefit and leveraging of Residential Development fees to partner with developers to create public open space. 9. Clarification of the Open Space Element's Incentives for Parkland Creation The new draft Open Space Element deletes an implementation action included in the previous 2020 draft (Implementation Action OS- 1.16), which indicated that the City should "[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private development and public agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the minimum requirements." Similarly, Implementation Action OS-1.7 now calls for the City to "[i]ncentivize the creation of public parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and environmental justice areas" and to "[establish incentives for coordination between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized public park space, such as exploring housing density bonus options for the provision of open space as a public benefit and leverag[ing] Residential Development fee[s] to partner with developers to create public open space." The Open Space Element should describe these incentives in greater detail. As suggested by Action OS-1.7, the City could provide a density bonus to development projects that exceed public parkland dedication requirements. This would be similar to the density bonuses provided to projects containing below -market -rate units under Government Code section 65915 (codified in Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 41, Article XVI.I). The density bonus could be provided on a sliding scale: development projects which exceed minimum parkland dedication by a greater amount would receive a larger bonus. The size of the maximum density bonus for additional parkland dedication should be no greater than the 25% maximum density bonus for below -market -rate units under the City's existing density bonus ordinance. Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41- 1604(a). However, development projects which include below -market -rate units and dedicate more parkland than required should be eligible to receive both the parkland density bonus and the affordable housing density bonus. Use of one bonus should not preclude or limit the use of the other. In the previous draft of the Open Space Element, Implementation Action 1.15 suggested a "100 percent reduction of onsite private and public open space requirements" if a development dedicates public park areas that exceed the minimum dedication requirement. 2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The City should consider a revised version of this incentive: reductions of onsite open space should reflect the amount by Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 13 which parkland dedication exceeds minimum requirements. For example, a development would receive a 90% reduction in the onsite open space requirement if it dedicates 0.5 acres more than the required amount of parkland and a 100% reduction if it dedicates 1 acre more parkland than required. 10. Proposed Changes to the Open Space Element's Funding Policies The Open Space Element currently includes the following policy: Policy OS-1.11: Funding Sources: Explore and pursue all available funding, including nontraditional funding sources, for park acquisition, facility development, programming, and maintenance of existing and new parks. Set aside park funding to have monies on hand to acquire and develop parkland when opportunities arise and to leverage grant options. Open Space Element at 6. We commend the City's commitment to pursue all available funding sources for parks. Given the current park deficiency in the City, the City should set an explicit goal to obtain enough funding for new park development to meet a park standard of three acres per 1,000 residents (see proposed changes to Policy OS-1.3 above). We propose modifying Policy OS- 1.11 as follows: Policy OS-1.11: Funding es: Explore and pursue all available funding, including nontraditional funding sources, for park acquisition, facility development, programming, and maintenance of existing and new parks, in order to increase park investment per resident and meet the City's Park Standard of three acres per 1,000 residents (Policy OS-1.3) Set aside park funding to have monies on hand to acquire and develop parkland when opportunities arise and to leverage grant options. In addition, the City should aim to increase per -resident investment in parks, including maintenance and improvement of existing parks as well as new park development. We propose the addition of an "increased per -resident parks investment" policy in the Open Space Element: Policy OS-1.15: Park Investment Per Resident. Increase per -resident investment in park maintenance and upgrades in order to ensure equitable access to well - maintained neighborhood parks for all City residents, and increase per -resident investment on new park acquisition and development to a level sufficient to achieve the City's Park Standard of three acres per 1,000 residents (Policy OS- 1.3). Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission September 15, 2021 Page 14 1371416.37 1*04oulllrsl nM �.wIF` 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www. smwlaw.com October 6, 2020 Verny Carvajal Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 vcarvajal@santa-ana.org GABRIEL M.B. ROSS Attorney Ross@smwlaw.com Re: Comments on Santa Ana General Plan Update DPEIR, Clearinghouse No. 2020020987 Dear Mr. Carvajal: On behalf of Rise Up Willowick, I write to provide comments on the proposed Santa Ana General Plan Update ("the Update") and its accompanying Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("the DPEIR"). The Update will guide the development of Santa Ana, including the Willowick Golf Course site, for many years, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., requires that the DPEIR thoroughly assess the Update and its environmental impacts. As set forth in the following comments, we urge the City to (1) continue to designate the Willowick site as open space, (2) provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid undermining the Housing Element and the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (the "HOO"), and (3) revise the DPEIR to fully analyze the Update's environmental impacts, especially those related to displacement and environmental justice. L The bulk of the Willowick site should continue to be designated as open space. The Willowick Golf Course site lies within the West Santa Ana Boulevard Focus Area, one of the focus areas slated for new development under the Update. DPEIR at 4-6. The Willowick site is currently designated as open space, and the Update proposes to maintain that designation. DPEIR at D-6 to D-8. Rise Up Willowick supports this designation until and unless there is a proposal for developing part of the site with affordable housing. The Trust for Public Land, the California Coastal Conservancy, and Verny Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 2 Clifford Beers Housing have submitted a proposal to the City of Garden Grove pursuant to the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 et seq., to develop the majority of the site into a community park, with affordable housing on the remainder. See Willowick Community Park Proposal, attached as Exhibit A. This public green space will further the goals and policies of the General Plan's Open Space Element, which call for the preservation of existing open space areas and the creation of new public parks. DPEIR at 5.15-13, 5.15-14 (Open Space Element, Goals 1-3). Designation of the majority of the Willowick site as public open space will help meet the growing demand for parks in the City. The Update's proposed increase in residential density in many areas of the City would lead to increased demand for parks and open space. DPEIR at 5.15-15, 5.15-17. The DPEIR projects that the proposed land use changes would result in construction of an estimated 36,261 dwelling units across the City (DPEIR at H-b-5), and a population increase of 96,855 people (DPEIR at 5.15-16). However, park acreage under the Update would increase by only 1.84 acres. Id. Open Space Element Policy 1.3 calls for the City to achieve a minimum park standard of two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City currently does not meet this per -resident standard, and under the Update the shortfall is projected to increase further: the total "parkland deficiency" would increase from 107.56 acres to 299.48 acres at build -out unless additional parks are provided. DPEIR at 5.15-16. The DPEIR calculates that the City currently has 561.94 acres of parkland, but it includes other kinds of open space in this total, such as sports facilities and school recreational facilities. DPEIR at 5.15-10. Although the DPEIR does not fully explain the basis for this parkland calculation, it appears that it may inappropriately count golf courses and cemeteries towards the parkland total. Golf courses, including the Willowick golf course, are classified as "open space." DPEIR at 5.15-10. A golf course, only usable by a small segment of the population and even then for a fee, is not the kind of public space that meets the community's needs. Cemeteries are also classified as "open space," although they are not available for recreational uses. DPEIR at 3-15. Thus, if the DPEIR counts these areas as parkland, the current park deficit is actually greater than the City claims. Despite the admitted deficit, the DPEIR concludes that the Update will have less than significant impacts related to park demand. DPEIR at 5.15-15 to 5.15-17 (Impact 5.15-1). It reasons that "[p]rovision of parks under implementation of the GPU, which will occur over time, is expected to keep pace with the increase in population growth related to the plan and would not result in a significant impact." Id. at 5.15-16. The DPEIR assumes that the City will develop significantly more open space than the 1.84 acres of future parks designated in the Update, funded via in -lieu impact fees collected Verily Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 3 from private developers, among other sources. Id. However, the DPEIR fails to provide any evidence that funding will be sufficient to reduce the City's parkland deficiency such that impacts would be less than significant. The DPEIR also asserts that the City's park shortage would be reduced by "private parks and recreational facilities owned and maintained by homeowner associations." Id. The DPEIR fails to note that many private recreational facilities, like rooftop parks, are not open to the public and will do nothing to improve park access for most of the City, especially lower -income residents. The DPEIR's unsupported conclusions and its failure to identify mitigation measures are invalid under CEQA. In order to achieve the City's park standard and accommodate the needs of tens of thousands of new City residents, additional park space is urgently needed, and the 102- acre Willowick site can help meet this need. The Willowick Community Park proposal calls for 90 acres to be set aside for public parkland, with the remaining 12 acres to be developed as affordable housing. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at 17, 30. In addition to serving growing citywide demand for parks, real recreational open space at the Willowick site will also help meet the existing needs of nearby residents who currently lack adequate access to green spaces in their neighborhoods. There are an estimated 8,500 people living within a 10-minute walk of the Willowick site who currently lack access to a nearby public park. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at 26. Preserving most of the Willowick site as open space will also help to mitigate environmental impacts associated with other aspects of the Update. The DPEIR indicates that the proposed increases in intensity of development and population growth under the Update are projected to generate significant impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. DPEIR at 1-13, 1-25 (Table 1-4). Urban green spaces improve air quality and mitigate climate change, as trees remove air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the air. See David J. Nowak and Gordon M. Heisler, National Recreation and Parks Association, Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks (2010), attached as Exhibit B; Erica Gies, The Trust for Public Land, The Health Benefits of Parks (2006), attached as Exhibit C, at 13. Thus, maintaining Willowick as green space can mitigate air quality and climate impacts. Willowick's role in air quality mitigation is especially important because neighborhoods adjacent to the site have high levels of certain air pollutants, including PM Verny Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 4 2.5.1 Urban green spaces like Willowick also help mitigate the urban heat island effect, significantly reducing temperatures in surrounding neighborhoods. See The Trust for Public Land, The Heat Is On (2020), attached as Exhibit D. Open space at the Willowick site may also help mitigate impacts on water quality and hydrology resulting from the Update, such as stormwater runoff impacts associated with new development. The DPEIR concludes that the Update's water quality and hydrology impacts would be less than significant and that no mitigation is needed. DPEIR at 5.9-29, 5.9-32. However, this conclusion improperly relies on asserted compliance with applicable state, regional, and local regulatory requirements. DPEIR at 5.9-30 to 5.9-32. Regulatory compliance does not determine the significance of impacts and cannot be used to bypass the City's obligation to analyze and mitigate those impacts. See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.AppAth 1, 15-17; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 1099, 1108-09. IL The Update does not provide for sufficient affordable housing and would undermine the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance. Santa Ana faces a growing shortage of affordable housing, especially of deeply affordable units. Since 2014, the City's below market rate housing construction has been heavily skewed towards above -moderate income units, which have far outnumbered production of low and very -low income units. City of Santa Ana, Request for Council Action: General Plan Housing Element Annual Progress Report (March 17, 2020), attached as Exhibit E, at 3. The City's estimated Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period is 3,086 housing units, including 360 low- income and 583 very -low-income units. DPEIR at 5-13-13; Southern California Association of Governments, Precertified Local Housing Data for the City of Santa Ana (August 2020), attached as Exhibit F, at 18. The DPEIR acknowledges that the Update "would directly induce substantial unplanned population growth" as well as employment growth, a significant impact which would further increase housing demand. DPEIR at 5.13-12 to 5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-1). The Willowick Community Park Proposal would help to address the City's affordable housing shortage, as it calls for 12 acres of the 1 Several census tracts adjacent to or near the Willowick site are designated as disadvantaged communities that experience a high pollution burden, including high concentrations of PM 2.5 and high occurrences of asthma and cardiovascular diseases. See CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30. Verily Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 5 Willowick site to be developed into approximately 270 affordable housing units. See Willowick Community Park Proposal at 30. The Willowick development by itself would not be sufficient to meet the City's affordable housing needs —the Update must provide for increased affordable housing development citywide. However, the Update fails to provide for sufficient housing at the affordability levels the City needs, and its upzonings would instead undermine the effectiveness of the city's Housing Opportunity Ordinance. The Update would increase residential density limits in many areas of Santa Ana. It would modify land use designations in five Focus Areas (South Main Street Focus Area, Grand Avenue & 17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway & Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street), re -designating portions of those areas for more intensive development and increasing the allowable dwellings per acre and floor -area ratio for residential construction in those areas. DPEIR at 1-6, 1-7, H-a-7. The Update would also add a "Corridor Residential" land use designation, which would allow higher density residential development in additional areas. DPEIR at 3-52. These upzonings will facilitate increased housing construction, but would also undermine the HOO's inclusionary housing requirements. The HOO requires developers to construct affordable units or pay a fee when the number of residential units in a new development exceeds the density permitted by applicable zoning. Santa Ana Muni. Code § 41-1902. Development projects are not subject to the HOO's inclusionary requirements if they do not exceed established density limits under the zoning for the site. Id. Because the Update would increase density limits in many areas of the City and allow more by -right development, fewer developments will need to seek City approval for additional density. In many, if not most, cases the HOO's inclusionary requirements will be triggered less often. As a result, the HOO will apply to fewer projects. Developers will build fewer affordable units and pay less into the City's inclusionary housing fund. By reducing the effectiveness of the HOO, the Update would also undermine General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which provides that "pursuant to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance," the City must "require eligible rental and ownership housing projects to include at least 15 percent of the housing units as affordable for lower and moderate -income households." DPEIR at 5.10-17. The Update will thus create an internal inconsistency within the General Plan, as the increased by -right densities will impede achievement of the Housing Element's goal. To avoid this illegal inconsistency, the City must, within or simultaneous with the Update, revise the HOO to ensure sufficient affordable housing production. Gov. Code § Verily Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 6 65300.5 (requiring "internally consistent" General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. Such revisions could provide that the HOO continues to apply to projects above the pre -Update density, even if that density is allowed by right under the Update. Alternatively, the City could increase the ordinance's inclusionary requirements, so that sufficient affordable housing is built even if the HOO applies to fewer projects. The Update's upzoning and its obstruction of the HOO will combine to displace present community members. Much of the housing development in the upzoned areas is likely to consist of market -rate housing unaffordable to lower -income residents. This is likely to increase prices of existing lower -cost housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. Rising rents and costs of living will displace people, potentially necessitating housing construction elsewhere. As the DPEIR acknowledges, such construction is potentially a significant environmental impact under CEQA. DPEIR at 5.13-10; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Appendix G, § XIV(b). The DPEIR, however, reasons that the proposed Update "would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist" and concludes that "implementation of the [Update] would not displace people and/or housing," leading to "no impact." DPEIR at 5.13-14 (Impact 5.13-2). This analysis fails to take any account of the mismatch between the affordability of housing under the Update and the means of the City's present residents. The DPEIR must reconsider its analysis of these impacts in light of the Update's failure to provide sufficient affordable housing. III. The DPEIR does not sufficiently analyze the Update's environmental justice impacts. The DPEIR also fails to adequately consider the Update's environmental justice impacts. S.B. 1000 requires local governments to include an environmental justice element in their general plan (or integrate environmental justice goals and policies into other elements). Gov. Code § 65302(h). This discussion must identify "disadvantaged communities" in the jurisdiction and identify ways to reduce health risks and other impacts on those communities, as well as improvements and programs that address their needs. Id. Government Code section 65302(h)(1)(A) requires general plans to "[i]dentify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity." The Update does not include a stand-alone environmental justice element, instead asserting that environmental justice Verny Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 7 issues will be incorporated throughout the Update. DPEIR at 3-17. The Update includes several draft goals and policies which refer to equity and environmental justice (See DPEIR at 13-a-2, 13-a-5, B-a-19, B-a-20, B-a-25, B-a-39, B-a-41, B-a-43, B-a-44). Despite the Update's inclusion of these policies, the DPEIR makes no attempt to analyze the Update's environmental justice impacts on disadvantaged communities. CEQA requires an evaluation of the Update's significant environmental effects and consistency with applicable General Plan policies. 14 Cal. Code Regs § § 15126.2(a), 15125(d). The Update includes goals and policies that seek to promote environmental justice by addressing air pollution, hazardous waste exposure, and other impacts on disadvantaged communities. See, e.g., DPEIR at B-a-25 (Policy CN-1.5; air pollution and environmental justice), B-a-39 (Policy 5-2.6; hazardous materials and environmental justice), B-a-43 (Policy LU-3.9; polluting land uses and environmental justice). The DPEIR should consider whether other aspects of the Update would have significant environmental impacts on disadvantaged communities,' and whether those elements would impede the Update's environmental justice goals and policies, creating an internal inconsistency within the General Plan. See Gov. Code § 65300.5 (requiring "internally consistent" General Plan); Sierra Club v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. The DPEIR should comprehensively analyze environmental justice impacts, including air quality and pollution exposure in disadvantaged communities as well as access to public facilities such as parks and access to healthy food. As part of its environmental justice analysis, the DPEIR should consider whether the Update may result in conflicts between industrial or commercial uses and proposed housing in corridors that the Update has designated for upzoning. It should particularly analyze any resulting impacts on disadvantaged communities. For example, air pollutant emissions from light industrial uses may affect air quality in the areas designated for increased residential density, potentially increasing residents' exposure to air pollution. Notably, four of the five "focus areas" designated for residential upzoning under the Update also include land designated for industrial uses. DPEIR at 1-6. This would potentially cause an disproportionate adverse impact on disadvantaged communities. Moreover, the effect of the Update policies promoting such development would cause harms contrary to Update policies on environmental justice- an internal inconsistency. ' The CEQA guidelines make clear that "economic and social effects of a physical change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment" and that "[i]f the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant." 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(e); see also id. § 15382. Verny Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 8 Similarly, he Update proposes a new "Industrial/Flex" land use designation in these areas, which will promote "large-scale office industrial flex spaces, multi -level corporate offices, and research and development uses." DPEIR at 3-18. The DPEIR must consider the potential impacts of these newly -designated industrial areas on existing residents in nearby housing. IV. Conclusion As currently proposed, the Update does not provide for sufficient open space or affordable housing, and would undermine the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance. As set forth above, Rise Up Willowick urges the City to (1) continue to designate the Willowick site as open space until and unless there is a proposal for developing part of it with affordable housing, (2) provide for more affordable housing in order to avoid undermining the HOO and causing an internal inconsistency within the General Plan, and (3) revise the DPEIR to fully analyze the Update's impacts on displacement and environmental justice. Rise Up Willowick respectfully requests that the City revise the Update to address these issues, revise the DPEIR, and recirculate both for public comment. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Gabriel M.B. Ross List of Exhibits: Exhibit A: Trust for Public Land, Coastal Conservancy, and Clifford Beers Housing, Willowick Community Park Proposal (August 2020) Exhibit B: David J. Nowak and Gordon M. Heisler, National Recreation and Parks Association, Air Quality Effects of Urban Trees and Parks (2010) Verny Carvajal October 6, 2020 Page 9 Exhibit C: Erica Gies, The Trust for Public Land, The Health Benefits of Parks (2006) Exhibit D: The Trust for Public Land, The Heat Is On (2020) Exhibit E: City of Santa Ana, Request for Council Action: General Plan Housing Element Annual Progress Report (March 17, 2020) Exhibit F: Southern California Association of Governments, Precertified Local Housing Data for the City of Santa Ana (August 2020) 1286679.21 EXHIBIT C SHUT_ MIHALY -I N BERGERLLP 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 GABRIEL M.B. ROSS T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 Attorney www.smwiaw.com Ross@smwlaw.com November 9, 2020 Via Email City of Santa Ana Planning Commission 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 c/o Commission Secretary Sarah Bernal e a gsa o®a a,or. Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update EIR, Clearinghouse No. 2020020997 Dear Chair McLoughlin and Commissioners: On behalf of Rise Up Willowick, I write to comment on the proposed Santa Ana General Plan Update ("the Update") and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). In the Final EIR the City has proposed changes and additions to the Update's Open Space Element that seek to create new parkland and avoid loss of parkland. We commend the City for including these measures in response to feedback received on the Draft EIR. However, these General Plan measures are insufficient: they do not fully explain how increased creation of parkland will work, and are ambiguous as to what lands are included in a proposed prohibition on net loss of parkland. Moreover, the Open Space Element calls for several Municipal Code amendments to put these General Plan polices into effect, but would defer them until 2022. This will create a period of uncertainty until the measures are fully implemented. We urge the City to revise the Open Space Element to clarify these ambiguities, and to defer the Update so that it can be adopted concurrently with these code amendments. Moreover, the City should defer the Update so that it can be aligned with the City's new Housing Element and code amendments to strengthen the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO). The revised Open Space Element Policy 1.3 indicates that the City should "prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees" for new residential development in Focus Areas. Rise Up Willowick City of Santa Ana Planning Commission November 9, 2020 Page 2 supports the prioritization of parkland dedication over parkland impact fee collection. However, the Open Space Element does not fully explain how prioritization would occur for projects of fewer than 100 residential units. Implementation Action OS- 1.16 indicates that the City should "[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private development and public agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the minimum requirements." Rise Up Willowick supports the creation of such incentives. However, the Open Space Element does not explain how the incentives program might operate or provide criteria to guide its implementation. The Open Space Element should be revised to further clarify these measures. Implementation Action OS-1.6 calls for the City to "[e]stablish land use provisions in the Municipal Code that prevent a net loss of parkland in the city" and "[r]equire at least a 1:1 replacement if there is any loss of public parkland due to development." We support the City's adoption of a "no net loss of parkland" requirement in the Municipal Code. However, we urge the City to clearly define what constitutes "parkland" for purposes of this requirement. The "no net loss of parkland" requirement should not impede the redevelopment of golf courses to include a mix of public parkland and affordable housing. As outlined in our October 6 letter to the City, The Trust for Public Land, the California Coastal Conservancy, and Clifford Beers Housing have submitted a proposal to the City of Garden Grove to develop most of the Willowick Golf Course site into a public park and to construct affordable housing on the remainder. The "no net loss of parkland" policy should not create barriers to projects such as the Willowick proposal that would create affordable housing and other community benefits in addition to public parkland. Implementation Action OS-1.151 calls for the City to "[a]mend the Residential Development Fee in the Municipal Code (Chapter 35, Article IV) to reflect requirements for Larger Residential Projects (100+ units, residential only or mixed -use) to provide two acres of new public parkland concurrent with the completion of and within a 10-minute walking radius of the new residential project." It also calls for the City to work with "new development projects within the Focus Areas" to encourage developers to provide more parkland than the Code requires. Similarly, Implementation Action OS- 1.8 calls for the City to update the Acquisition and Development Ordinance to increase dedication and fee requirements and ensure that parkland is acquired near projects creating demand. Rise Up Willowick supports these changes, and urges the City to ensure 1 The City's responses to comments in the Final EIR label this action as OS- 1.14, but the Open Space Element of the revised Update identifies this action as OS- 1.15. 1l�M11nACN City of Santa Ana Planning Commission November 9, 2020 Page 3 their effectiveness by applying these parkland dedication requirements to all new market - rate projects, including those smaller than 100 units. Most importantly, we urge the City to take up these Code revisions now. Implementation Actions OS-1.6 and OS- 1.15 both defer the amendments until 2022, two years after the City's planned Update adoption. By deferring implementation for two years, the City would create an extended period of legal uncertainty for developers, City residents and other stakeholders. During this period, the "no net loss of parkland" and expanded parkland dedication requirements for large developments would constitute City policy but would not yet be reflected in the Municipal Code. Projects will need to be consistent with the General Plan policies, but without Code revisions, developers will not know how to comply. The General Plan serves as a "constitution" for the regulation of future development in the City. DeVita v County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772. The City's land use regulations must be consistent with the General Plan. Lesher Communications, Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. To avoid an extended period of inconsistency between the General Plan and the Code and the resultant uncertainty, the City should adopt the Update concurrently with the Municipal Code amendments implementing Actions 0S-1.6 and OS-1.15. The City should not take action on the Update until those code amendments are also ready for adoption. By adopting the Update on a rushed timeline, the City also risks creating unintended consequences inconsistent with the City's affordable housing goals. In our October 6, 2020 letter to the City, which is hereby incorporated by reference, we urged the City to provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid undermining the Housing Element and the City's HOO. As we explained in that letter, the Update would cause substantial population growth, but fails to provide for sufficient deeply affordable housing, increasing the risk of displacement. Moreover, the Update's upzonings would reduce the HOO's effectiveness because the HOO's inclusionary requirements would apply to fewer projects. The Update would therefore impede General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which calls for the inclusion of affordable units in new residential developments via the HOO. The City should avoid this inconsistency by deferring the Update until next year so that it can be adopted concurrently with the City's new Housing Element, and should simultaneously amend the HOO to ensure sufficient affordable housing production, as discussed in our October 6 letter. 1ILJCLlMIInA1Y City of Santa Ana Planning Commission November 9, 2020 Page 4 In closing, we urge the City to revise the Update to (1) further elaborate on how the City proposes to incentivize increased creation of new parkland, (2) clarify what open spaces are covered by the "no net loss of parkland" policy, (3) extend the enhanced parkland dedication requirements to new market -rate residential developments smaller than 100 units, and (4) postpone the Update until it can be adopted concurrently with the corresponding changes to the Municipal Code and aligned with the City's new Housing Element. The Planning Commission should not recommend adoption of the Update until these issues have been addressed. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Gabriel M.B. Ross cc: General Plan Email: ewge era dsa o-a a.org Public Comment Email: eco e sLdsa o-a a.org Planning Dept. Director Minh Tai: ai ibsa o-a a.or Principal Planner Verny Carvajal: vca aia Ldsa o-a a.org Planning Commissioners: v �d-,sa o-a a.or c o g�d_,s o-a a.or ; arcia 0 sa o-a a,org; Isngu e 20 s a s-a a.org; rivera sa o-a a.org; cco reras- eo(ebsa o-a a,or ; [no email available for Commissioner Thomas Morrissey] 1307224.10 1ILJ�MIInACY December 7, 2021 Via Email Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update Open Space Element Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Councilmembers Phan, Penaloza, Lopez, Bacerra, Hernandez, and Mendoza, The Rise Up Willowick Coalition ("the Coalition") is comprised of residents from the City of Santa Ana, the City of Garden Grove ("the City"), and neighboring Orange County Cities as well as local organizations who want to ensure that the Willowick Golf Course property ("Willowick") is developed to meet the needs of current and future local residents and their vision of publicly accessible parkland, deep affordable housing, and community spaces. As the City Council considers adopting the draft General Plan Update ("the General Plan") today, the Coalition would like to make clear that it opposes the adoption of the Plan as it is proposed today. The reason being that the General Plan does not propose policies and programs that will effectively address the environmental justice ("EX) concerns Santa Ana residents and community groups have continuously raised for the past two years. For example, while the City proposes to keep the zoning of Willowick as open space, it does not adequately address how it plans to meet its current and projected park deficit. The City's Parkland Deficit One of these environmental concerns the City does not properly address is the deep parkland deficit in Santa Ana. The City's Municipal Code states that the City's parkland standard is a ratio of 2 acres of parkland per every 1,000 residents. The City has not met that standard. It currently has a parkland deficit of 154.44 acres, which means that for every 1,000 residents there are only 1.54 acres of parkland.' In the City's Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan, that deficit is projected to increase to 346.41 acres by the year 2045 based on the development and population increases the City anticipates the Plan's proposed policies will facilitate, or to 1.20 acres per every 1,000 residents.2 On October 6, 2021, RUW sent a letter ("the October 6th letter") to Mayor Sarmiento, City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, Planning Director Minh Tai, and Principal Planner Melanie McCann that stated that the Open Space policies the City was proposing to address the parkland deficit would not be effective. In that letter, the Coalition provided recommendations on ' Final Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 5.15 4, October, 2021, p. 5.15-28, 2 Ibid. Page 2 of 2 how the City could effectively increase parkland including raising its parkland standard to 3 acres per 1,000 residents, which is recommended for a City the size of Santa Ana, and a No -Net -Loss of Open Space Policy that would ensure that any open space land lost to development that is not 100% affordable, would be replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. The October 6th letter is included with this letter. One important thing to note is that the October 6th letter provides an inaccurate figure for the City's current and projected parkland deficit. The City revised the City's current and projected parkland deficit figures after the letter was sent. The October 6th letter also provided policy language for a No -Net -Loss of Open Space Policy ("the Policy") that would not only help preserve the City's existing parkland, but actually create more parkland through the preservation and repurposing of the City's current open space land. By the City's own admission at the Planning Commission meetings on September 13, 2021 and November 8, 2021, the City's parkland is so acute that it feels there is no way of increasing the supply of parkland to a proper level. This is true if the City only uses its existing parkland to address its parkland deficit as the City currently proposes to do in the General Plan. However, the Policy language the Coalition provided proposes that open space, not just parkland, is preserved so that it can be repurposed as publicly accessible parkland. This open space land includes properties like the Willowick Golf Course. The Policy the Coalition proposes is a viable solution for addressing the City's park deficit. Other Environmental Justice Concerns In addition to concerns over the General Plan not addressing the City's current and future parkland deficit, the Coalition would also like to acknowledge that there are other EJ issues the City's General Plan does not adequately address. Community groups like Orange County Environmental Justice, Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Santa Ana Active Transportation, the Kennedy Commission, and Thrive Santa Ana have raised concerns over the fact that the General Plan policies will not solve issues over air quality, lead contamination of soil, mobility, and the intensification of development in the City's proposed 5 Focus Areas that will likely facilitate the displacement of current residents. The City claims it has done extensive community outreach over the last year. While there were multiple EJ forums and an EJ survey where residents and community groups raised the concerns mentioned in this letter, the City's General Plan does not fully, or even majorly, address them. The Coalition believes that true community engagement is not just about how many opportunities for community input the City hosts, but a true effort to address the input residents provide. For all the reasons stated in this letter we ask that the Council not adopt the General Plan being proposed tonight and instead direct Staff to work with residents and community groups to develop policies that actually address community needs, including the No -Net -Loss of Open Space Policy. Please contact Cynthia Guerra at cguerra@riseupwillowick.org if you have any questions. Sincerely, The Rise Up Willowick Coalition Orozco, Norma From: Rica Garcia <Rica.Garcia@doj.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2021 3:26 PM To: eComment Subject: Comments Submission - Santa Ana General Plan Update To whom it may concern: Our Office has been monitoring and evaluating the City's General Plan Update for compliance with Senate Bill 1000 ("SB 1000"), which requires the City to adopt an environmental justice element or policies as part of the General Plan Update. SB 1000 intends to make environmental justice a real and vital part of the planning process by encouraging transparency and equitable participation during all stages of a general plan update. During the Nov. 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting, a majority of the community members expressed that the City failed to engage and adequately address key environmental justice issues. In order to accomplish equitable participation, we recommend the City address such concerns before moving forward with adoption. Further, given the magnitude of the soil lead contamination issue in Santa Ana and the impacts on environmental justice communities, we wanted to follow-up on the City's General Plan policies related to lead contamination. In particular, LU-3.29 focuses on evaluating soil hazard conditions and remediation in new development projects. However, it does not include evaluation or remediation in existing residential areas. How does the City plan to address soil lead contamination in existing residential areas? Moreover, as part of LU-3.29, will the City implement measures in the development review process that would require evaluation and remediation of soil hazard conditions on property adjacent to sites with hazardous soil lead levels? Thank you, Rica V. Garcia Deputy Attorney General Bureau of Environmental Justice California Attorney General's Office 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Tel. (cell): 408-398-4278 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816 www.smwlaw.com December 7, 2021 Via Electronic Mail Only Santa Ana City Council c/o Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 ecomment@santa-ana. org Re: Santa Ana General Plan Update Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Council Members: KATRINA A. TOMAS Attorney ktomas@smwlaw.com On behalf of Orange County Environmental Justice ("OCEJ"), I write to provide comments on the Santa Ana General Plan Update and its accompanying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR" ). Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP previously submitted comments on behalf of OCEJ on the Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("RDPEIR') in a September 20, 2021 letter to the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the City has not adequately addressed the various issues noted in these previous comments. As a result, the General Plan Update as written and its accompanying FEIR remain flawed. L The City Failed to Investigate Environmental Justice Concerns. At the heart of the issues plaguing the General Plan Update and its FEIR, is the City's rushed approval process that has continuously neglected community concerns and input. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section 2100 et seq.,1 requires a thorough evaluation of the General Plan Update's environmental impacts. This includes impacts to environmental justice communities as a result of soil lead contamination. The FEIR's meagre attempts at an investigation through the environmental justice community engagement survey ("community survey") fails to 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. References to the "CEQA Guidelines" are to title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. Santa Ana City Council December 7, 2021 Page 2 meet CEQA's standards. Throughout the environmental review process the City has received numerous comments from OCEJ and other community stakeholders decrying the lack of focused environmental assessment in disadvantaged communities despite the evidence of pollutant concentrations, including lead -contaminated soils, in those communities. Moreover, across several roundtable discussions, OCEJ repeatedly expressed concern about the draft community survey's inadequate design. OCEJ observed that most of the lead contamination -related questions assumed that the main source of lead contamination was lead -based paint and neglected other sources, such as historical emissions from combustion of leaded gasoline. This mischaracterized sources of lead contamination in Santa Ana. Furthermore, the survey's design forced residents to choose between environmental justice priorities, rather than allowing residents to highlight all of the issues concerning their communities. None of these issues were rectified in the final version of the survey. The community survey also failed to ensure adequate participation. Out of Santa Ana's 332,318 residents, only 746 completed the survey. RDPEIR at 2-23. This amounts to merely 0.2 percent of the total population. Clearly, the City's outreach methods were flawed. Indeed, by the City's own accounts, only 12 percent of residents received a flyer encouraging participation in the community survey. See RDPEIR at 2-23. Additional volunteer efforts distributed just 1,400 hard copy surveys. Accordingly, the community survey cannot constitute an accurate assessment of the City's environmental justice needs. In the FEIR's response to comments, the City entirely fails to address these issues. In fact, the City neither provides any explanation for its poorly designed community survey nor addresses its ineffective community outreach. As a result, the City threatens to violate CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines acknowledge that "an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." Guidelines § 15144. The Guidelines also require agencies to engage in a "thorough investigation" of a particular impact. Guidelines § 15145. To fulfill CEQA's informational purpose, an agency must make "a good faith effort at full disclosure." Guidelines § 15151. In particular, the City "should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. The community survey, which captures merely 0.2 percent of the City's total population, does not meet CEQA's disclosure and investigation requirements. A more thorough community engagement process is needed to better inform the update to the City's General Plan. 1-1UIL)WIdAVY �v`X/L NP)ERG1__'R , Santa Ana City Council December 7, 2021 Page 3 OCEJ urges the City Council to delay adoption of the General Plan Update and the FEIR until the City can implement an adequate community survey that will adequately capture concerns from the wider Santa Ana community. II. The General Plan Update's Environmental Justice Policies Addressing Lead Contamination Are Inadequate. The inadequate community survey led to a flawed, narrow framing of proposed General Plan policies. Had the City properly engaged in a thorough community survey, the results of the soil -lead contamination assessment would have provided additional support for the policies community stakeholders like OCEJ, Thrive Santa Ana, and Rise Up Willowick continue to propose to the City. Moreover, the General Plan Update's lead contamination policies do not satisfy the spirit of Senate Bill 1000 ("SB 1000"), which requires incorporating environmental justice policies into a General Plan Update and ensuring these policies adequately address health risks to environmental justice communities. Gov. Code § 65302(h)(1)(A). While the City has complied with the former requirement, it has not yet satisfied the latter. As the California Department of Justice ("DOJ") previously noted in its own comment letters, the City's lackluster policies do not match the severity of the lead contamination burdens and unique needs of the disadvantaged communities in its jurisdiction as SB 1000 requires. Gov. Code § 65302(h)(1)(C). DOJ also agrees that the City must do more to incorporate community input. OCEJ reiterates the following concerns: First, the General Plan Update does not include any provisions that require, or even encourage, the City to engage in testing soils in residential neighborhoods for lead contamination. Additionally, there is no clear process or agreed upon safety thresholds for identifying lead -contaminated properties. Second, proposed soil -lead contamination policies only provide superficial commitment of City resources. Comprehensively remediating soil -lead contamination and lead toxicity will require an ongoing effort over several years. Yet, proposed solutions for remediating soil -lead contamination and to increase access to blood testing for Santa Ana residents are set to expire in 2022. See RPDEIR Appendix B-a at 4-6, 63. Effectively addressing lead contamination in Santa Ana will require more than just one year of work, partnerships, and commitment. Finally, the City continues to ignore OCEJ's healthcare policy recommendations that will best serve Santa Ana's environmental justice communities. 1-1UIL)M111AV_Y Santa Ana City Council December 7, 2021 Page 4 While the General Plan Update provides some policies aimed at expanding access to affordable healthcare, uninsured residents impacted by lead contamination continue to be left without recourse. See, e.g., RDPEIR Appendix B-a at 3.This is particularly troubling in Santa Ana, where a large proportion of City residents are barred from accessing Medi- Cal insurance due to their immigration status. III. Conclusion As described above, the FEIR fails to thoroughly assess and analyze environmental justice concerns. This flawed analysis has resulted in General Plan Update policies that are not responsive to community concerns and undermine the spirit of SB 1000. OCEJ urges the City to (1) delay approval of the General Plan Update and certification of its accompanying FEIR, (2) revise the community survey and work with community groups to more broadly disseminate the survey to impacted residents, and (3) participate in an additional series of roundtable discussions with impacted residents and community groups to accurately capture community approval of current General Plan policy language and incorporate any pending resident concerns. OCEJ respectfully requests that the City revise the FEIR to address these environmental justice issues and recirculate the document for public comment. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Katrina A. Tomas cc: Patricia J. Flores Yrarrazaval, OCEJ Keila Villegas, OCEJ Shahir Masri, UCI Public Health Jun Wu, UCI Public Health Juan Manuel Rubio, University of California Irvine Alana LeBron, University of California Irvine Abigail Reyes, Community Resilience, University of California Irvine Gregory Lopez, Community Resilience, University of California Irvine Danielle Stevenson, University of California Riverside Lisa Rudloff, Santa Ana Parks, Recreation and Community Services I—lUJIL)MIIdAV-Y Dec 11, 2021 Dear Mayor, City Council and Staff, I am writing to urge you to wait until we can complete a Historical Survey on South Main before adopting the new General Plan. Without a Historical Survey, we can't identify the antique structures which give South Main Street much of its charm. Way back this past Spring, in April or May, staff from Planning contacted myself and fellow neighborhood leader Ginelle Hardey to ask that we stop plans on conducting a community -led historical survey because the City was going to contract a consultant to research all the buildings on the South Main Corridor. We have the largest concentration of Streamline Modern, Googie, Craftsman and other regional forms of architecture in the whole county right on South Main Street dating back to it's time as a part of historic Route 101, a sister highway to Route 66. At the November 4 Historical Resources Commission meeting, Ginelle and I asked the status of this Historical Survey and staff could not provide an answer. If no Consultant has been contracted or if the Survey can not be completed, I ask that the City partner with existing South Main Neighborhood Alliance, a coalition of South Main residents, neighborhood leaders and businesses to complete this important endeavor. Approving a General Plan that does not protect our important historical structures will ensure their destruction as development rushes forward on this important corridor. As a guide to the kind of partnership that would be ideal, I ask you to review the City of San Antonio's proposed Historic Buena Vista District which includes a video presentation and multi-lingual flyer campaign for local residents: hit s: www.sananion!o. ov historic scouisa II i!sior!cD!sir!cis BuenaV!sta Looking forward to working together to preserve our historic heritage! Sincerely, --- Sandra Pena Sarmiento Pacific Park / Eastside Neighborhood Leader cc Ginelle Hardey, Henninger Park Neighborhood Leader Irma Jauregui, South Main Neighborhood Alliance Orozco, Norma From: Jose Rea <josejrea@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2021 12:21 PM To: eComment Cc: eComment; Bacerra, Phil; Lopez, Jessie; Mendoza, Nelida; Penaloza, David; Phan, Thai; Ridge, Kristine; Sarmiento, Vicente; Hernandez, Johnathan; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Adolfo Sierra; Leone) Flores; Jabari Brown (clinic) Subject: City of Santa Ana General Plan December 7, 2021 Santa Ana City Council, City Manager and City Attorney Re: General Plan Update Last year the Planning Commission delayed the approval of the City of Santa Ana General Plan due to the insufficient and late efforts by the Building & Planning Agency to outreach and include environmentally impacted communities in the process of developing the new plan as required by SB 1000. While the city started the GPU review process in 2015, SB 1000 as anew law was implemented in 2018. The advocacy efforts by the residents and community organizations resulted in the 2020 delay of the GPU before its adoption by the previous city council. As a voting resident of the city, I hope the current city council would be more receptive to address the serious public health risks we are exposed to by polluting industries in the Madison Park Neighborhood and surrounding communities, 21 neighborhoods across 17 census tracts are considered Environmental Justice Communities in Santa Ana according the CaIEPA. I called them ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE COMMUNITIES. This is your opportunity to place the health of the residents you represent and who elected you as your top priority, the way it should always be, above business and industry interests. Do not approve the current version of the GPU, a one-year delay was not sufficient time and effort on the part of the city to educate and significantly include the communities most impacted by environmental injustice. The GPU blueprint will stay as the policy to follow for decades to come. It is your duty to improve the health outcomes of the current population as well as the next generations. Allow more time to continue to outreach to EJ communities, review and improve the current draft. Jose Rea Madison Park Neighborhood Department of AintlhiropolloqV 3151 Social Science Plaza Irvine, CA 92691-5100 (949) 824-1207 httl2s://www.anthrol2olog3:.uci.edu December 7, 2021 Re: Environmental Justice in Santa Ana's General Plan Update Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana's Draft General Plan Update. I am a PhD Candidate at the University of California Irvine specializing in environmental justice policy issues in Southern California, and my dissertation research focuses on SB 1000 implementation in Santa Ana. I have had the pleasure of working closely as a research collaborator with community organizations in Santa Ana since 2014, most recently with MPNA-GREEN's community air monitoring initiative. I am writing to express my serious concerns with the Draft General Plan Update and to urge the City Council not to adopt the GPU at today's City Council meeting. As a blueprint for the next several years of the City's development, this document should ensure inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability. 1. It is antithetical to the environmental justice principles to approve the General Plan Update in a meeting that is not accessible to all Santa Ana residents. Robust, inclusive, and equitable community engagement is the cornerstone of environmental justice. While the City has made important strides in improving community outreach about EJ in the General Plan since last fall, when the state Department of Justice endorsed a delay in the planning process, the current General Plan falls short of reflecting the voices and interests of the city's 17 disadvantaged communities. For one immediate and crucial example, remote participation in city meetings by Zoom and phone is no longer available to residents, despite ample evidence throughout the pandemic that these options are both feasible and essential for community engagement. 2. The General Plan Update should establish procedures and expectations for transparency and accountability regarding historical, ongoing, and future environmental hazards impacting Santa Ana's disadvantaged communities. In the course of my work with MPNA-GREEN and UCI researchers, we have encountered a serious lack of transparency about industrial permits and permit violations. MPNA-GREEN and numerous community leaders have recommended several measures to ensure transparency and accountability, including: a. Collection and publication of baseline data on emitters, emissions, and concentrations for each disadvantaged community, b. Specific, goal -oriented remediation plans for each disadvantaged community c. Public access to comprehensive and up-to-date emissions reports from all facilities requiring permits from air quality, water quality, and toxic substances control boards, d. Establishing a city Office of Environmental Justice to oversee emitters' compliance with existing environmental regulations, coordinate among environmental agencies and other stakeholders, and track and respond to community input, and e. Publishing monthly reports on permit violations, permit requests, pending cleanups, code violation enforcement, and city compliance with environmental standards in each of the city's disadvantaged communities. In asking you to delay the approval of the current General Plan Update, I would be remiss if I did not thank each of you for your commitment to supporting environmental equity and community engagement in the planning process thus far. As one of the first municipalities in California to implement SB 1000 in its General Plan Update, Santa Ana is at the vanguard of developing, community -led solutions to environmental justice issues across the state. The City has the opportunity to set a new standard for local, participatory environmental justice policy. Please heed the voices of the community leaders and residents most impacted by toxic pollution, social vulnerability, and political marginalization: do not pass this General Plan Update without incorporating their concerns. Sincerely, Kathryn Cox, MA PhD Candidate in Anthropology, University of California Irvine National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow Haynes Foundation Graduate Fellow UCI Newkirk Center Environmental Justice Fellow cc: Adolfo Sierra, President, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jose Rea, Treasurer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Leonel Flores, GREEN Community Organizer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jabari Brown, Myson Foundation Clinical Fellow, UCI Environmental Law Clinic Vicente Sarmiento, Mayor, City of Santa Ana Thai Viet Phan, Ward 1 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana David Penaloza, Ward 2 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Jesse Lopez, Ward 3 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Phil Bacerra, Ward 4 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Ward 5 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Nelida Mendoza, Ward 6 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Kristine Ridge, City Manager, City of Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney, City of Santa Ana 2 UCI School of Social Sciences 3151 Social Science Plaza Irvine, CA 92697-5100 (949) 824-1207 htt]2s://www.anthro]2ology.uci.edu December 7, 2021 Re: Environmental justice in Santa Ana's General Plan Update To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana's Draft General Plan Update. I am Mike Fortun, a historian and anthropologist of science and professor at University of California Irvine (UCI). I specialize in the study of how science is used in governance, helping highlight best practices. I write to encourage the City of Ana to adopt best practices for using science in governance in updating the city's General Plan. The timing of the city's work to update its General Plan is especially ripe given rising expectations across the country and California that environmental injustice be proactively addressed at the local level. The time is also ripe because of the expanse of scientific research now underway in Santa Ana, many through partnerships with UCI. I am part of a large, interdisciplinary science team from UCI recently awarded a California Department of justice Grant to study air pollution in Santa Ana, for example. Results from UCI research in Santa Ana will continue to be available in coming years. The General Plan needs to include explicit plans to use these research findings in their continuing planning and programing. Developing capacity for best -practice use of science in governance in Santa Ana will require focused planning, new levels of organizations and new communication strategies. For this reason, I recommend slowing down passage of a new General Plan for Santa Ana so that plans for developing this capacity are detailed and foregrounded. The next General Plan for Santa Ana should include concrete plans to establish a new Santa Ana Office of Environmental justice. This office would be responsible for assisting and monitoring new scientific research on Santa Ana, helping translate it into planning and policy. A new Santa Ana Office of Environmental justice could also be responsible for hosting regular public meetings where new scientific findings can be shared and discussed. These meetings should be accessible in person, by phone and teleconference (Zoom). Broad and extensive public sharing of information about scientific research relevant to local communities is a key aspect of best -practice use of science in governance. The Santa Ana General Plan will be much stronger - and potentially a model for other cities around the United States - if it clearly acknowledges the importance of science in governance, detailing specific ways this will be accomplished. Thank you for your attention and public service, Mike Fortun, PhD cc: Adolfo Sierra, President, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jose Rea, Treasurer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Leonel Flores, GREEN Community Organizer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jabari Brown, Myson Foundation Clinical Fellow, UCI Environmental Law Clinic Vicente Sarmiento, Mayor, City of Santa Ana Thai Viet Phan, Ward 1 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana David Penaloza, Ward 2 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Jesse Lopez, Ward 3 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Phil Bacerra, Ward 4 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Ward 5 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Nelida Mendoza, Ward 6 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Kristine Ridge, City Manager, City of Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney, City of Santa Ana 2 MIN � � � M, 3151 Social Science Plaza Irvine, CA 92691-5100 (949) 824-1207 https://www.anthropology.uci.edu December 7, 2021 Re: Environmental Justice in Santa Ana's General Plan Update To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana's Draft General Plan Update. I am Kim Fortun, Professor of Anthropology at University of California Irvine. For over thirty years, my research has focused on environmental injustice in settings around the world. Since 2017,1 have studied environmental injustice across California. The City of Santa Ana has many, largely unrecognized environmental hazards. I applaud the initiatives of the Santa Ana City Council to address these hazards in coming years. Passage of a new General Plan provides important opportunities to detail these initiatives. Many aspects of Santa Ana pose special environmental justice challenges, yet aren't adequately addressed (if at all) in the City's "II::::nv' iron irneintall Jusfiice I adle it ,aa,in,��,,,, a,in,��,,,, Ait a siis for the General Hain Update. • The city has important industrial facilities but they aren't dramatically visible to citizens (like the refineries in Wilmington, for example). These facilities release pollution into air and water every day, to an extent not yet adequately characterized. Some of the facilities also have potential for "worst case scenarios'' in which a large amount of toxic chemicals would be released off site into adjacent communities, with devastating effects. The US Environmental Protection Agency has identified six facilities with worst case scenario potential in Santa Ana (see thus Hst). Many of the facilities are very near homes and schools. Worst case scenarios are not addressed in the City's environmental justice analysis linked to above. • The city is nestled among many freeways and has many schools and care facilities very near to freeways. The City is also cross -cut with many heavily traveled boulevards. A growing body of research points to serious health effects of near -roadway pollution, pointing to the need for new approaches to zoning and heightened use of green cover for air quality control. This research has guidance for urban planning. (See, for example, this recenfl ubrshed resew ch . While greening is mentioned in the above environmental injustice analysis, special proposals advanced by community groups in Santa Ana have not been included. These include increased acreage of green space per resident and requirements for green walls and roofs. • Orange County and the City of Santa has gained national attention for pollution of water sources with PFOA ("forever chemicals," which have serious health effects). (See this L.A T runes coven aye). The special challenges of addressing PFOA pollution (and potential increases in water costs for residents and businesses) are not included in the City environmental justice analysis linked to above. • Workers in Santa Ana have recently identified illegal pollution levels in stormwater discharged by the Kingspan Light + Air factory in Santa Ana's Delhi neighborhood. (See V6ce of OC coveurage). This points to the need to better characterize and address water pollution from all industrial facilities in Santa Ana. It also points to the important role of industrial workers in Santa Ana as partners in environmental protection. These aren't addressed in the City's environmental justice analysis linked to above. • There are rising concerns about environmental hazards faced within workplaces in Santa Ana. (See this LA J..urnes coven This isn't addressed in the City's environmental justice analysis linked to above. • The City of Santa Ana has many legally designated "disadvantaged communities" which deserve proactive initiative to address the environmental injustices they face. City of Santa Ana also has many highly capable community organizations ( (Madison Park Neighborhood Association and Orange County Environmental Injustice, for example) that can be important, highly effective partners in initiatives to address environmental justice in the city. Plans to leverage these community organizations aren't yet detailed in the City's environmental injustice analysis linked to above. The hazards and potentials listed above have not yet been well characterized or addressed in the City of Santa Ana's planning thus far. For this reason, I strongly recommend slowing down passage of a new General Plan. The General Plan will be much stronger - and potentially a model for other cities around the United States - if it clearly acknowledges the many environmental hazards that need to be addressed in Santa Ana, detailing how this will be done. A key aspect of a strong General Plan will be development of capacity to keep residents, business owners, schools and other stakeholders informed about environmental hazards and how they are being addressed in Santa Ana. I understand that this kind of communication is difficult to support in City governments given the scope of their responsibilities. I thus want to highlight the importance of establishing a new Santa Ana Office of Environmental Justice to lead and coordinate this. A key responsibility of this office would be to hold regular public meetings, sharing updates on the City's environmental justice initiatives and soliciting public input. Thank you for your attention and public service, Kim Fortun, PhD cc: Adolfo Sierra, President, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jose Rea, Treasurer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Leonel Flores, GREEN Community Organizer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jabari Brown, Myson Foundation Clinical Fellow, UCI Environmental Law Clinic 4 Vicente Sarmiento, Mayor, City of Santa Ana Thai Viet Phan, Ward 1 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana David Penaloza, Ward 2 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Jesse Lopez, Ward 3 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Phil Bacerra, Ward 4 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Ward 5 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Nelida Mendoza, Ward 6 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Kristine Ridge, City Manager, City of Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney, City of Santa Ana DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS- M.S. #40 1 120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov December 6, 2021 Ms. Melanie McCann, Principal Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701-4058 Dear Ms. McCann: Making Conservation a California Way of Life. Electronically Sent mmccannC?santa-ana.ora iauevara C?sa nta-ana.org The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics (Division) appreciates the City of Santa Ana's (City) Notice of Intent (NOI) to overrule as is required by California Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21676(b). The notice informs the Division of the City's intent to overrule the October 15, 2021, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's (OCA LUC) determination that the proposed amendment to the City's General Plan update Golden City Beyond (Project) is inconsistent with the 2008 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) forthe John Wayne Airport (JWA) regarding the City's comprehensive update of the Golden City Beyond General Plan. Resolution No. 2020- 078 to overrule was signed the next day, October 16, 2020, by Mayor Miguel A. Pulido, which shows the City's intent to overrule before the ALUC issued its determination. According to the NOI, "Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City may overrule the commission by a two-thirds vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act (SAA), as stated in PUC Section 21670. And, the City finds that the Project is consistent with the JWA AELUP and the ACT based on the following Findings of Fact and substantial evidence." In advance of a public hearing on the Resolution to consider overruling the ALUC's determination, the Division is providing the following comments pursuant to PUC section 21676. A goal of the Division is to assist cities, counties, and ALUCs in the implementation of policies that protect the safety and welfare where aeronautical activities take place. Another goal is to support public access to State permitted airports as well as the planned development and retention of airports across California. The most heavily used and relied upon of these airports are the commercial service airports, including JWA. Beyond the value of being an access point to the National Airport System supporting air passenger and air cargo traffic, airports are critical to the air attack agencies that rely on quick response times to manage incidents to minimizethe loss of life and property. During emergencies such as a pandemic orwildfire, the public may be more tolerant to aircraft noise. However, once these events subside, the number of noise complaints "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economyand livability" Ms. Melanie McCann December 6, 2021 Page 2 fielded by JWA may increase as operations return to pre -pandemic levels. The Project's land use changes could exasperate this noise issue, particularly within the three Focus Areaswithin the AELUC forJWA airport planning area (AIA). As a result, JWA's future operational viability could be diminished. The JWA Economic Impact Study (2014) illuminates the valueof this extraordinary economic engine and why it should be preserved, since it supports 22,000 jobswith $2.8 billion in economic output, including $230.8 million in tax revenues. Ranked as the sixth busiest commercial airport in California, it is important to note that JWA is a self- supporting enterprise that receives no general fund tax revenue, while serving as many as ten million passengers annually between 2015-2019. (https://www.ocair.com/about/news-info/statistics/). As a part of the JWA's good neighbor policies, this airport is one of a few airports that restricts hours of commercial airline's aircraft operations to those between 1 1:00 p. m. and 7:00 a. m. The noise program was a result of collaboration with neighboring communities, and the Division encourages this type of partnership in the planning process. The Division is concerned by the City's Project and this proposed resolution to overrule the ALUC regarding its inconsistency determination, which includes revisions to the existing elements, the addition of new elements, and five new focus areas for future development. The Division is most concerned with the cumulative effect of the proposed zoning changes related to the three focus areaswithin the ALUC's Airport Planning Area (AIA). These focus areas are expected to add nearly 18,000 new residents to the population impacted by JWA traffic patterns and approach /departure overflights. Minimizing the public's exposure to aircraft noise and the increased risk from even a single aircraft accident with mixed -use housing and structural heights of these buildings is the overall intent of the AELUP forJWA. The focus areas' land use designation changes are within the Approach -Departure path of the primary runway end 20R. The Division agrees with the ALUC that the City's proposed Project will subject future residents to a very high frequency of commercial passenger aircraft overflights. Furthermore, this action by the City may be in violation of the provisions of the SAA, as well as Senate Bill (SB) 1000, for safety and environmenta I justice and other CEQA provisions for protections from aircraft noise. The City's proposed action to overrule and allow increased housing densities than those currently allowed within the AIA AELUC for JWA could be in direct violation of section 21676(b), SB 244, Local government: land use: general plan: disadvantaged unincorporated communities, and SB 1000, Land use: general plans: safety and environmental justice. Additionally, California Health and Safety Code section 17922.6 regulates noise for multi -family dwellings. These laws have the goal of protecting people from airport "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportations ystern to enhance California's economyand livability" Ms. Melanie McCann December 6, 2021 Page 3 impacts and reducing the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities and to foster economic, social, and educationa I equality. More directly, despite any Federal Aviation Administration Determination of No Hazard forth e proposed new buildings withint he focus areas, the cumulative effect by the proposed building heights area major concern to the ALUC and the Division. On a case by case basis, the ALUC may find a proposed project to be inconsistent with the AELUP, particularly as it relates to sections 1.2 and 2.1.4, and the PUC, section 21674 (a). The Division shares the ALUC's concern and interpretation of their role as it regards the proposed growth in mixed -use developments and associated structural building heights. This is in accordance with the AELUP forJWA, section 2.1.3 pages 13-14, which states: A [n] [Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)] Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not automatically equate to a Consistency determination by the ALUC. The FAA may also conclude in their aeronautical study that a project is an "Obstruction" but not a Hazard to Air Navigation... The commission may utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at individual airports which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action. According to Government Code section 65302.3 (a), a city's general plan as well as any applicable specific plans, "shall be consistent" with an ALUCP (e.g. AELUP for JWA) and that every affected city must amend its general and specific plans as necessary to keep them consistent with the ALUCP. To further clarify how anALUC addresses newly proposed construction projects and use permits and structure height, refer to PUC 21676(a). The City's Findings of Fact note that the 2008AELUP for JWA is not consistent with the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) does not apply, since Handbook updates do not impact the currently adopted AELUP for JWA. The SAA requires coordination between airports and local land use but does not specify how often plans should be updated. The Handbookwill guide subsequent AELUP updates. ALUCs are encouraged to expand on the Handbook's recommended minimums, wherejustified, to protect the airport's viability and publicwelfare from further incompatible land uses. Also, the City finds "The vast majority of the Project falls outside of the JWA AELUP planning area, which is defined in Section 1.7 of the JWA AELUP as the furthest extentof the 60 CNEL Contour, the FAR Part 77 Notification Surfaceand the runwaysafety zones associated with the airport..." The City also finds that the Project is consistent with the JWA AELUP as "the majority of the project falls outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour" and "the vast majority of the project is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour." However, three out of five focus areas are all or partially within "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportations ystern to enhance California's economyand livability" Ms. Melanie McCann December 6, 2021 Page 4 the AELUP planning area (A IA), including the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Area, the South Bristol Focus Area, and the South Main Focus Area. Citing JWA AELUP section 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone 1 for "Residential use sound attenuation required to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB" overlooks a key provision of the section, "residential uses within the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour must be'indoor-oriented' to preclude noise impingementon outdoor living areas, as defined in Section 1.7." The provision in between states, "All residential units are inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures, which shall be the energy sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an interior standard of45 dB CNEL." The Division supports the determination of inconsistency by the ALUC to be following the intent of the AELUP forJWA and its role to concurrently protect public safety and airport viability in concert with local development, as directed by PUC 21674(a). The Division also acknowledges the concerns noted by the OCALUC and JWA regarding the aircraft noise impact on all residents who will occupy the site for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Division is concerned that the subsequent mixed -use developments will limit JWA's future operational capacity. Finally, the City of Santa Ana's City Council Resolution to Overrule the ALUC will remove the ALUC's liability. Please note: The Division's comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions orwe maybe of further assistance, please contact me via email at kevin.ryanC?dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Originally signed by KEVIN RYAN Associate Aviation Planner c: Ms. Lea Choum, Executive Officer, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4608; ALUCinfoC?ocair.com "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportations ystern to enhance California's economyand livability" Community Development Depaiti.i.ient Mayor Sarmiento and Members of the City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 ecomments@santa-aiia.org 1111111 Fill .1 0, I -All L�,111011.6 NIM-1 ................ TUSTtN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST The City of Tustin appreciates the opportunity to submit this letter on the Santa Ana General Plan Update (GPU) and its Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). As a neighboring jurisdiction, Tustin has been closely monitoring the proposed GPU as its land use changes have the potential to adversely affect the City, its residents, and its environment. Given the magnitude of development contemplated by the GPU, it is imperative that the EIR comprehensively evaluate and mitigate the GPU's environmental impacts. Unfortunately, a detailed review of the FEIR, including the responses to Tustin's September 16, 2020, October 6, 20,20 and September 20, 2021 letters, reveals that the FEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Tustin's letters identified numerous legal inadequacies in the DEIR and the Recirculated DEIR (hereinafter collectively referred to as "DEIR"). In particular, we explained that the DEIR failed to adequately analyze or mitigate the CPU's recreation, transportation, air quality, noise, and hazards impacts. We also determined that the DEIR failed to provide a legally defensible alternatives analysis, Such fundamental errors undermined the integrity of the DEIR. The FEIR dismisses many of Tustin's comments and downplays numerous others. In many instances, the IFEIR merely seeks to defend the erroneous assertions andl conclusions of the prior documents. The remainder of this letter addresses the FEIR's legal deficiencies. We will not reiterate the comments raised in our prior letters to Santa Ana. Instead, we will elaborate on some of the FEIR's most serious shortcomings. The FEIR Fails to Rectify Deficiencies in the DE�IRs Analysis of and Mitigation for Park and Recreation Impacts. As we explained in our prior letters, the DEIR erred because it did not analyze park and recreation impacts to the City of Tustin that would result from the GIPU's proposed development. We explained that -these impacts are likely to be acute given the deficient supply of parkl'and in Santa Ana and the lack of existing parks in the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road focus area in particular. The FEIR does nothing to-cec—1 . %/a ar - - - Ii. I 'J "1 11 1 i2LLI� I n Ti icti 300 Centennial Way, T-ustin, CA 9278o 0 P: (714) 573-3100, @ F: (714) 573-3113 a wvTwAusfir1ca.org City of Santa Ana December 7, 2021 park and recreation facilities. Instead of providing the impact analysis we requested, the FEIR adds 2. mitigation measure, asserting that the measure would addresses Tusfin's concerns. (See FEIR, I Response to Comments, Response A2-2, pp, 2-25! p. 2-27). Unfortunately, thi's mitigation measure ebes nooncerns. Nor, as we explain below, does the measure comply with CEQA's clear standards. Mitigatioin Measure REC-11 calls for Santa Ana to monitor future residential development projects projects' potential impacts on existing public parks within a one-half mile radius of the focus area. (FEIR, Response to Comments, Response A2-2, ppi2-25, 2-26). If'the utilization study determines a project would result in a significant impact, the mitigation measure calls for Santa Ana to mitigate the impact by implementing measures such as land dedication and making a fair -share contribution to acquiring new or enhancing existing public parks within the one-half mile radius. Id. There are several flaws with this miti•ation measure. First we •�uer the nature of the utiliz• City of Santa Ana December 7, 2021 P a g e � 3 Third, the study area of Mitigation Measure REC-1 is too narrow and, as a result, will not ensure that Impacts are sufficiently mitigated. As its currently written, the m!easulire calls for preparing a utilization study to evaluate projects' irnpacts within a one-half mile radius of the 55 Freeway/Dyer focus area. While there is one park, Legacy Park, within one-half mile of the focus area, another park, Victory Park, is about 2,,7010 feet from the border, just outside the one-half mile radius. Tustin also plans to develop another park, a linear park within Tustin Legacy. For this reason, Mitigation Measure REC- 1 should be revised so that the utilization study is undertaken for projects within a two-mile radius of the focus area. also provi e, that, should the utilization study determine signiticant impacts caused by t e is financially compensated, either with land dedication or with, a mutually agreed upon fair -share cottriWotion. JOE BE 9 a GO 0 City of Santa Ana December 7, 2021 P g e 1 4 must also commit to paying its fair share of 84.5 percent (based on the highest peak hour impacted) at the Tustin Ranch Road/Walnut Avenue intersection. To this end. Tustin requests that Santa Ana adopt a GPU Condition of Approval calling for a Transportation Fair Share Funding Agreement MOU between Tustin and Santa Ana that documents that the cities will work together in good faith to implement a fair share funding agreement. In addition, although not located in the City of Tustin, the GPU would cause a significant impact at the SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Fourth Street -Irvine Boulevard intersection. (FEIR (October 2020), Appendix K, p. 1360). Given its proximity to Tustin, traffic congestion at this intersection will affect Tustin's residents and employees. Despite this fact, we can find no indication that Santa Ana intends to contribute its fair share toward the necessary improvements at this intersection. We request that the Traffic Analysis be revised to identify the necessary improvements to the SR-55 Southbound Ramps/Fourth Street -Irvine Boulevard intersection and that the aforementioned Transportation MOU between Santa Ana and Tustin commit to ensure that improvements to this intersection are undertaken in an expeditious manner. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Please feel free to contact me at L\qiL�Lom@tusfinc,a.org with any questions or concerns. cc: Matthew S. West, City Manager NIicole Bernard, Assistant City Manager Doug Stack, Public Works Director Krys SaUvar, Public Works Manager Irma Huitron, Assistant Director.- Ranning Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner Orozco, Norma From: Patricia Flores <patricia@ocej.org> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2021 6:23 PM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment: Do Not Approve the Santa Ana General Plan Update Dear Santa Ana City Council: We are writing to you as iPlo-NO! Santa Ana, a collaborative including Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ), Jovenes Cultivando Cambio (Youth Cultivating Change), and researchers from the UC Irvine Program in Public Health and the UCI Community Resilience Project, which formed in 2017 to investigate soil -lead contamination and advocate for remediation and the health equity needs of Santa Ana's disadvantaged communities. We are a coalition of grassroots leaders, Santa Ana residents, and community -driven scholars with backgrounds in public health, history, environmental sciences and law, and we are writing to ask that you vote to not approve the Santa Ana General Plan Update (GPU), until it includes policies to comprehensively address the decades -long soil -lead crisis and its toll on the health of our most vulnerable communities. We are concerned that the community outreach process for the GPU has not sufficiently engaged with the perspectives and needs of impacted residents, and that the current policies do not adequately remediate the environmental injustices faced by our city's most vulnerable communities. From 2018 to 2019, our collaborative collected 1555 soil samples from across Santa Ana, tested them for soil -lead content, and found that 52.7% of residential samples had Pb concentrations in excess of the 80 ppm safety threshold established by the California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and 11 Census tracts were characterized as high risk according to our Cumulative Risk Index. What's more, we found that the neighborhoods most impacted by soil -lead contamination were also: • Predominantly people of color • Lower median household income • Lower % of college educated residents • Higher proportions of renters • Higher fraction of residents without health insurance • Higher proportion of residents with immigrant status background • Limited English proficiency • Predominantly Latinx/Hispanic residents The State of California defines Environmental Justice (EJ) in section 65040.12(e) of California Government Code as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." By this definition, Santa Ana's low-income residents of color are suffering a great environmental injustice, and the General Plan is our city government's opportunity to implement comprehensive policies to address this injustice. When Santa Ana residents mobilized last Fall to ask that the city undergo an outreach and engagement process to include the needs and voices of our most impacted community members, we were pleased that the city paused adoption of the General Plan Update and invited our collaborative, among other important stakeholders, to a series of roundtable discussions to inform the development of a community survey. We provided feedback that the survey's design forced residents to choose between environmental justice priorities, rather than allowing them to highlight all of the issues that affect their communities. Furthermore, we observed that most of the lead contamination -related questions assumed that the main source of lead contamination was lead -based paint and neglected other sources, such as historical emissions of leaded gasoline, which, according to the literature, was the largest contributor of lead to urban environments. They also relied on residents having specific data about the sources of lead contamination in their properties and neighborhoods, including information such as the year in which their home was built, which is not common knowledge for most renters. We were disappointed, however, to see that the city did not address these concerns in the final version of the survey disseminated to Santa Ana residents and, although soil -lead contamination still emerged as the second highest priority, we believe that a better -structured survey would have more accurately represented the perspectives of our communities. In addition to our critiques of the content of the survey, we also feel that the city did not effectively outreach to the community to ensure their participation in the process. Out of Santa Ana's 332,318 residents, only 746 completed the survey, or about 0.2% of our total population. This does not constitute an accurate assessment of our communities' environmental justice needs. We, along with many other residents and community stakeholders, believe that a more thorough community engagement process is needed to better inform the update to the City's General Plan. While we also appreciate that the City Planning Department invited our Collaborative to a series of meetings to present our research and inform policies to address the soil -lead crisis, ultimately, very few of our proposed solutions were incorporated into the GPU. The soil -lead policies that were adopted are insufficient, because: 1. There are no provisions for the city to engage in soil -lead testing in residential neighborhoods, and no clear process or agreed upon safety thresholds for identifying lead -contaminated properties; 2. While Implementation Action 2.4 of the Safety Element expresses a commitment to working with our organization to understand the prevalence of environmental lead contamination in Santa Ana and to proposing solutions and measurements of effectiveness, there is not an actual expressed commitment to remediating the lead. What's more, the timeline limits the action to 2022--with a problem as widespread as soil -lead contamination, one year is not enough time to effectively address the crisis; and 3. There is no commitment to collaborating with the Orange County Health Care Agency to provide healthcare services for undocumented and uninsured residents living in neighborhoods impacted by soil - lead contamination. In addition, there are no provisions ensuring that Santa Ana residents are prioritized for jobs to remediate lead contamination, and that they are provided proper protective equipment and living wages; and prioritizing bioremediation over removal of contaminated soils, to save money and avoid moving contaminated soils into other communities. All of these policies are of dire importance, in order to finally put an end to the poisoning of our residents, and to ensure that the city's response to this crisis addresses the negative health effects that our communities are already suffering. Furthermore, the Santa Ana City Council recently passed the Santa Ana Public Health and Climate Emergency Resolution, which commits the city to "implementing policies to remediate lead and other environmental toxins, in tandem with renter protections to ensure that remediated households are not displaced as a result of environmental clean up efforts." The General Plan Update is the perfect opportunity to put this resolution into action. While the City has committed in the latest draft of the General Plan to work with our Collaborative and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OC HCA) to advocate for more stringent lead screening measures at the local and state levels, as well as to discuss proposed solutions for remediating soil -lead and to increase access to blood -lead testing for Santa Ana residents, these activities are limited to 2022 in the listed timeframe. These are projects that will require an ongoing effort over several years to accomplish, and the city must commit to continuing this work beyond next year if we hope to effectively address lead contamination in Santa Ana. In order to ensure that the final version of the General Plan genuinely reflects the perspectives and needs of Santa Ana residents and expert community stakeholders, we request that the City participate in an additional series of roundtable discussions with impacted residents and community groups such as our own, in order to confirm their approval of the current policy language and incorporate any pending resident concerns. We also request an additional, specific meeting to discuss incorporating more comprehensive policies to address environmental lead contamination, especially considering the recent passage of the Santa Ana Public Health and Climate Emergency Resolution. In this way, we can collaboratively develop a robust General Plan that effectively addresses the numerous environmental justice and health concerns of our residents, and ensures that those communities most impacted by these issues can heal from this crisis, and thrive in Santa Ana for generations to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Patricia J. Flores Yrarrazaval Project Director Orange County Environmental Justice Jun Wu, PhD Professor University of California, Irvine Alana LeBron, PhD Assistant Professor University of California, Irvine Juan Manuel Rubio, PhD Mellon Faculty Fellow University of California, Irvine Shahir Masri, PhD Assistant Specialist University of California, Irvine Keila Villegas Lead Organizer Orange County Environmental Justice Gregory Lopez Project Manager UCI Community Resilience Projects Danielle Stevenson Graduate Student Researcher University of California, Riverside Patricia J. Flores Yrarrazaval She/her/hers, they/them/theirs Project Director Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ) www.ocej.org FB/IG: @ocenvironmentaljustice Orozco, Norma From: Ian Ross Baran <ibaran@uci.edu> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2021 10:49 PM To: eComment Cc: Bacerra, Phil; Lopez, Jessie; Mendoza, Nelida; Penaloza, David; Phan, Thai; Ridge, Kristine; Sarmiento, Vicente; Hernandez, Johnathan; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Adolfo Sierra; Jose Rea; Leonel Flores; jjbrown.clinic@exchange.uci.edu Subject: General Plan Update 12/06/2021 Re: Environmental Justice in Santa Ana's General Plan Update To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Santa Ana's Draft General Plan Update. I am a PhD Candidate in the Urban and Environmental Planning Department at UC-Irvine as well as a Research Justice Fellow who has been working with Madison Park Neighborhood Association since the Fall of 2020. Much of my work focuses on the intersection of environmental justice, community development, and structural inequality, as well as the ways that communities are generally left out of processes that gravely impact them. I would like to raise concerns regarding the General Plan Update: 1. Environmental justice is a huge concern for residents in Santa Ana, many of whom live near businesses and factories that emit toxic substances which pollute and affect the air and water quality for residents. This causes asthma and other major conditions, which has major consequences both health, social, and economic, for residents, but most seriously and above all causes premature death. 2. There is an inadequate amount of community input on environmental justice issues. This is extremely important. Oftentimes community voices are overlooked in these processes, which means that city council cannot actually adequately address the needs of its residents without the necessary input to know what to address. As an addition, community engagement over Zoom needs to be the standard now set to ensure maximum participation at events that have drastic consequences for residents. Their voices need to be heard and need to shape the way of the city's future. There needs to be better transparency and accountability established within the General Plan. This means public access to reports and other key information, an Environmental Justice compliance department to oversee emissions regulation, and monthly reports created on vital information. In summary, there has not been enough community input on environmental justice issues and the General Plan itself does not take environmental justice issues and harms seriously which has drastic consequences for residents. The only way forward is that the General Plan process needs to be delayed. Sincerely, Ian Baran PhD Candidate, Urban and Environmental Planning, UC-Irvine, Research Justice Fellow cc: Adolfo Sierra, President, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jose Rea, Treasurer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Leonel Flores, GREEN Community Organizer, Madison Park Neighborhood Association Jabari Brown, Myson Foundation Clinical Fellow, UCI Environmental Law Clinic Vicente Sarmiento, Mayor, City of Santa Ana Thai Viet Phan, Ward 1 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana David Penaloza, Ward 2 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Jesse Lopez, Ward 3 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Phil Bacerra, Ward 4 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, Ward 5 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Nelida Mendoza, Ward 6 Councilmember, City of Santa Ana Kristine Ridge, City Manager, City of Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney, City of Santa Ana Orozco, Norma From: Aaron Senese <aaronlsenese@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2021 11:28 AM To: eComment Subject: December 7th meeting: the future of upgraded transit along Bristol Categories: Correspondence To the council of the City of Santa Ana My name's Aaron and I'm a resident of DTSA. It's recently come to my attention that the General Plan for Santa Ana will soon be under review. Given that the mayor and a number of council members have expressed a desire to increase the utilization of mass transit within the city, I believe there's one thing we have to bear in mind; The opportunity cost of driving versus riding mass transit must be adjusted. In more simple terms; the quality of our mass transit service determines how likely someone is to choose mass transit for their trip. Frequency, speed and accessibility are all key factors in this - factors that a distributed bus network alone cannot solve. It isn't just advisable but absolutely necessary for our council to explore, study and support higher capacity for our most frequently used routes - both ih the interest of ridership and improving the lives of those of us like me who must take mass transit and have no other choice. Since the long-term plan for the section of Bristol St. running through Santa Ana is being considered in the General Plan, I'd like to focus on route 53, which runs past locations like South Coast Plaza, the Outlets and Angels' Stadium - some very important magnet locations which draw a large number of trips by car already. The 53 already runs local and express versions of the route and, with some limited changes to major intersections along Bristol St. and the repainting of lanes, it would be possible to run existing vehicles in center running lanes, allowing express busses to run quickly and unimpeded between major stops. If stoplight prioritization for these busses was included in the upgrade, they could run seamlessly - almost as if they had their own dedicated right of way. To put it bluntly; the cost of this would be two lanes on Bristol street - one in each direction. This cost is, of course, the elephant in the room for anyone who commutes as part of their living. However, automotive traffic is a complex issue, and this upgrade has potential benefits for drivers. First; more people using transit along Bristol means more trips up and down the street by car are removed. Put simply, a single person using their car can be imagined to take up nearly the length of a city bus due to the size of their car and the leeway in front and behind the car - and that's per -person if someone is driving alone. Imagine the passenger count of a single bus, now imagine each of these had their own bus. That's the basic reality of road traffic. Each bus worth of passengers is twenty or more busses worth of space freed up for other drivers who need or really want to drive. Second; less lanes can mean less conflict between cars. Merging slows traffic down, this is part of the reason that Bristol has limited intersections and it's also why two -lanes of traffic can have more throughput than three. There's also the fact that express and local busses will no longer be encountering each other and attempting an overtake. Long term, there is a great deal of extra space around Bristol and more radical widening plans could include rights of way - both north and south - for center running busses while still maintaining the same number of lanes for cars. The busways could be easily converted to streetcar lines when the community finds they are necessary, making busways a useful interim step, one that requires much less commitment but gives many of the same benefits. Having a single seat ride from anywhere on Bristol to Angels' Stadium and the Outlets at Orange would, of course, be the biggest benefit to everyone. Imagine not having to hunt for a parking spot for 30 minutes! That alone should give our automotively inclined residents pause before writing off this idea, and I hope everyone will give it fair consideration. Orozco, Norma From: D. Rod <monkey_1886@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:44 AM To: eComment Subject: City Council Meeting Categories: Correspondence Good afternoon, Do any of you live in the areas to be impacted? Please put $$$ and greed aside and consider quality of life for those that already live in these areas. Overcrowding is already an issue and here you are proposing 17,575 new housing units — of which we are all certain will be high density, cramming as many bodies into limited space. The traffic, the air quality, the noise ..... in your own Notice of Public Hearing you cite "significant .... adverse environmental impacts". That sentence alone should give you pause. Environmental Impact paragraph ends with "all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant". Any impact we have on our local environment is significant. It truly is sad what is becoming of all of our cities under the guise of "progress". The City will certainly do whatever will bring in the most $$$ regardless of what the residents feel/want, that is a given. I still thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns although they fall on deaf ears. Have a great day. Make good choices. Doris Rodriguez General Update Hearing February golden city oevonct A millinT. Well- iArjillil - 5, Ili ® Jt®. I _ Loll one1 I ��'� 0� -LACIT ... jj� fill BOWERS MUSEUM Now DOWNTOWN ORANGE COUNTY 04, - L I Z-1 7rr OR \X.// GOLDEN CITY BEYOND: 2045 �e SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • General Plan Purpose and Vision Community Engagement Highlights of the Elements • Environmental Impact Analysis • Next Steps • Recommended Actions I PURPOSE &VISION SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • Road map guiding the future of Santa Ana • Policy document providing foundation for City ordinances and regulations • Planning document guiding the physical development, quality of life, economic health, and sustainability of the City • Has not been comprehensively updated since 1982 A SHARED VISION SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Santa a is a city that promotes the h th and we ness o a reslents, It as a civic culture that actively embraces the power of diversity. Our city invests in resources that create economic opportunities for the next generation, and it is a community that celebrates our past while working together to create a sustainable future. 0 U R CORE VALUES CULTURE SUSTAINASILITY EQUITY Timeline of Events 2015 . January - March CommunityMeetings April - June CC 1-on-1 Interviews April - September Youth Outreach October CC Outreach Update February - November 14 General Plan Advisoiy (GPAG) t golden � 2018 2019 2020 February GPAG Recognition Group June Meetings g. CC Status Update July CC Study Session August - September Pop -Up Events December PolicyFramework March - May Land Use Online Survey April 5 Land Use Community Workshops May Chamber of Commerce Meeting June PC Study Session March EIR Scoping Meeting 0July EJ presentation/video, HRC presentation oJuly - August 2 Virtual Community Workshops oFall General Plan Adoption 021 W January - March EJ Roundtable March - May EJ Survey/ EJ Virtual Forums August Draft PEIR / GP Public Review `September IR Public Hearing CIfictober C Public Hearing COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • Over 70 community meetings and workshops • Individual community workshops within each of the five Focus Areas with over 300 residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders participating in the workshops • Community Survey Issues + Opportunities: Over 650 Responses • MPPtinuc Nninvironmental h ictjce groups r., and hles (Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Logan Neighborhood Association, Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Association, Orange County Environmental Justice) • Over 100 CARES events within EJ areas COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • Multilingual videos on the General Plan Update • Project Webpage: santa-ana.org/general-plan • Communication Linkage Forum (Com-Link) meetings • Mailing list (over 865 subscribers) • Approximately 44,000 direct mailers sent to property owners and tenants in Focus Areas • Updates to Planning Commission + City Council 2021 EJ OUTREACH CAMPAIGN SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • January through May 2021 • Collaborative Outreach • 10 Virtual Community Forums • 236 Participants • Multilingual Survey & Forums • In -Person Open House — August 2021 WHAT WE HEARD 4:2� SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Key Themes and Topics • Environmental Pollution • Physical Activity • Improve Public Facilities • Healthy Food Options • Infrastructure Improvements • Civic Engagement Survey — Online/Print • 746 Completed Surveys • 8 free opportunity drawing winners, $100 gift card each • �. T' ■ 'rT CL� .O, Me .. ;4; �► FINAL DRAFT Banta Ana General Plan & EEIF% `i4�_�,��Lf77 .'., I DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Volume I: Volume II: Services and Infrastructure • Community • nArNhilit,./ • Economic Prosperity • Public Services Natural Environment Conservation Noise Safety Volume III: Built Environment Land Use • Urban Design Housing (2022) -11-AS - - vP � �~ , F �' eooLwozTs_�u •.-+... '' — � � �� -:1 r �' � �_ .�.� `•� _ LAND USE ELEMENT - - SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN ■ PURPOSE Designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses. LAND USE ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Focus • Improve health outcomes • Increase amount of park land • Balance of land uses • Expand housing choices • Compatibility of uses • Improve City's fiscal performance • Vibrant downtown • Create employment opportunities • Preserve historic resources • Improve infrastructure REINVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES �( SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Focus Areas Developed with input and feedback from the City Council, Residents and Community Stakeholders, General Plan Advisory Committee & Interagency Team 1. South Main Street 2. Grand Avenue/17t" Street 3. West Santa Ana Boulevard 4. 55 Freeway/Dyer Road 5. South Bristol Street GC LR � LR LR ■ N�LR McFadden Ave. LR� �a 3• V �D LR Edinger Ave. �� I LR LR LRI J • IND LR Warner Ave. LR Ave. IND LR-7, Low Density Residential INS, Institutional OS, Open Space - GC, General Commercial IND, Industrial - DC, District Center r,. 23 air ri� a �- • Facilitate redevelopment and property improvements along Main Street • Create more active and dynamic streetscape • Realize a more intense, multi -story frontage along the corridor • Support transit, pedestrian, and non - motorized travel • Focus growth and activity centers at major intersections G ■■ LR ` LR e r I LR ^ I L ! r� LR McFadden Ave. ! i i LR i < �KFORD STN i BOACHAR❑ a;t i %R 3 � Edinger Ave. ! , V NIQ Ij RD L �Wti'ONj ST I WCt E ST • CIOENIAL 5 St Andrews I + Sr ANC o LRI j I ! I �• • —! i LR I.. . I i IND i LR s I IND Low Density 2 7 du/ac Residential stories -Urban 1.0 FAR or 3 Neighborhood 20 du/ac stories -Industrial/Flex 1.5 FAR 3 stories -Institutional 2.0 FAR 2 stories Low Density Residential: Single family neighborhoods. Urban Neighborhood: Low density urban neighborhoods with a mix of single and multi -family housing; mixed -use residential with ground floor retail, services, and restaurants; cultural uses; and public and private open spaces. Industrial/Flex: Office/industrial flex spaces, small-scale R&D, clean manufacturing. Institutional: Government facilities, public service facilities, public institutions. _- -. =_; �w i _--, i-_ ,�i: _-� _- �,_�- __ �" --- � - _ _ -, -- - - �_. __ 'tea - - _- - - 4 - `�i ��� 1 .11 1 . 1 } Southeast corner: Warner/Broadway i 411111111 Lt —.6- ®i1.1 • a 1� a i 111 1fill � Offims ice& OF 4PP, Northwest corner: 17t"/Grand LAND USE FOCUS AREAS GRAND AVENUE/17T"STREET - EXISTING too 4 C Eastside of Grand: Between Santa Clara and Fairhaven ortheast corner: 17t"/Train tracks Northwest corner: Grand/5 Fwy • Create mixed -use corridors and urban villages • Realize a more intense, multi- story frontage along the corridor • Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods • Foster community spaces and neighborhood -serving amenities • Develop opportunities for live/work, artist spaces, and small-scale manufacturing • Maintain compatible nodes of commercial activity Fairhaven ve L LR LR LR Bea wood LR 5 ra Ave LR LR 21- LR LR 3 7TH sa_ E LR -LR N LR LR LR 6`h St LR l� <—N 5T I T LR r 1SG •, i l.! 1 2.0 FAR or 6 - District Center 90 du/ac stories Urban UN-20 Neighborhood -Low Urban Neighborhood —Medium Low 1.0 FAR or 3 20 du/ac stories 1.5 FAR or 4 30 du/ac stories Urban 1.5 FAR or 5 UN-40 Neighborhood g 40 du/ac stories —Medium 3 Industrial/Flex 1.5 FAR stories General 35 Commercial- 1.0 FAR feet Medium -District Center: Transit -oriented urban village with a wide range and mix of residential, live/work, commercial and employment -generating uses. Urban Neighborhood: Medium -high density urban neighborhoods with a mix of attached single- and multi -family housing; mixed -use residential with ground floor retail, services, and restaurants; cultural uses; public and private open spaces. Industrial/Flex: Office/industrial flex spaces, small- scale R&D, clean manufacturing. General Commercial: Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, service commercial. ,fc - - • , � Y Mgt' �'.... ... � , _ .. -' .nj' a .1�.. +.e. ip y s. Ot y Southeast corner: Grovemont/Hathaway pw , 7z, �, �1, IF 0 utheast corner: Grovemont/Hathaway GC LR-7. Low Density Residential MR-15, Medium Density Residential INS, Institutional OS, Open Space PAO, Professional and Administrative Office GC. General Commercial IND, Industrial UN. Urban Neighborhood GC GC GC r� vav� rp- • Develop multi -story housing and mixed -use opportunities near streetcar stations. • Promote infill development while respecting established neighborhoods. • Buffer industrial land uses and residential neighborhoods. • Create opportunities for clean industrial/maker- type spaces. Low Density Residential 7 du/ac 2 stories -Low -Medium Density 11 du/ac 2 stories Residential Medium - Density 15 du/ac 3 stories Residential -Corridor 30 du/ac 3 stories Residential Urban UN-20 Neighborhood 1.0 FAR or 20 du/ac 3 stories -Low Urban UN-30 Neighborhood 1.5 FAR or 30 du/ac 4 stories -Medium Low WESTMINSTER-AVE 4y GC r.EEEAVE GC iy m Garden L Grove LR GC K; IIk'ARD A V F :•,�� r = GC LR w LR FEE aim LR Low Density Residential: Low-rise single family residential. Low -Medium Density Residential: Single-family homes, duplexes, small lot subdivisions, and mobile home parks. Medium Density Residential: Mix of low- and medium -rise single and multi -family housing, including small lot subdivisions, townhomes, live/work units. Corridor Residential: Medium urban density housing such as attached townhomes and apartments —adjacent to GC, and UN. Urban Neighborhood: Medium density urban neighborhood with mix of attached, single and multi -family housing; mixed - use, cultural uses; and public and private open space. UN-20 y - FLEX-' _ UN-30 PAO 2. .- PAO LR �r--"-"1------------sANTAANA.BEVU•--�_--'�—� - GC GC GC GC GC-1 - General Commercial 0.5 FAR 35 feet - General Commercial- 1.0 FAR 35 feet Medium Professional & Administrative 2.0 F;.1 3 stones Office Industnal/Flex 1.5 FAR 3 stories Institutional 2.0 FAR 2 stone- - Open Space N/A 2 stones ".!INSTER-AVE GC I General Commercial: Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and service commercial. Professional& Administrative Office: Professional and administrative office and supportive service commercial and restaurants. Industrial/Flex: Office/industrial flex spaces, small-scale R&D, clean manufacturing. _ Institutional: Governmental facilities, public service facilities, and public institutions. OpenSpace: Recreational and green spaces, public infrastructure, and rail facilities. LR LR LR GC GC GC PAO GC 4 Northwest view: Townsend/3rd St. A �Iftlzft-� FW -"W - -,C-. -TTF� �:r 4F T- Jim' 4t Northwest view: Townsend/3rl St. ALI OS, Open Space PAO, Professional and Administrative Office - GC, General Commercial IND, Industrial - DC, District Center LR • Provide housing opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City's edge. • Enhance opportunities for large, multi -story office and industrial space. • Attract economic activity into the City from surrounding communities. • Protect industrial and office employment. • Maintain hotel and commercial uses. General 0.5 FAR 35 feet Commercial General Commercial- 1.5 FAR 35 feet Medium High District 2.0 FAR or - 6 stories Center 90 du/ac -Industrial/ 3.0 FAR 10 stories Flex General Commercial: Shopping, restaurants, entertainment, service commercial. District Center: High density urban villages consisting of visually stunning and vibrant buildings and spaces with a wide range and mix of residential, live/work, commercial, hotel, and employment -generating uses. Industrial/Flex: Office/industrial flex spaces, R&D, clean manufacturing, corporate headquarters and campuses. 91 WARNER AVE ;- a; a� IND IND C7� e LR i q AVE '�iC_ IND Tustin �•; � c _.. '_ x � w ��' ern' -ram'- s;�rr-'-"Tf�'�. 'a,�y".s`�'.-'� /- _ ti^w5ar�rrrr _ r a r lam k - - _ � � � - - _ � _- _ .ate } ��. � • \ ,y - A\ `t view: 55 Fwy/Dyer � _ _ Warner Ave---- — — tR tral Ave iP LR LR-7, Low Density Residential LR I MR-15, Medium Density Residential Way Segerstrom Ave i�; OS, Open Space PAO, Professional and Administrative Office - GC, General Commercial - DC, District Center Northeast corner: Sunflower/Plaza Dr. • Capitalize on the success of the South Coast Metro area. • Introduce mixed -use urban villages and encourage experiential commercial uses that are more walkable, bike - friendly, and transit -oriented. • Realize an intense, multi- story presence along the corridor. • Provide for mixed -use opportunities while protecting adjacent low density neighborhoods. WARNER AVE LR n c Q u J < i Q 4DAM5 ST a a LR 00 Segerstrom Ave ' LR 0 m Alton Ave _._____ LR LR HEMLOCK LR LR ACARTHUR LR Between MacArthur & Alton DC 2 District Center -Medium 2.0 FAR or 10 90 units/acre stories Between MacArthur & District Center DC-5 Sunflower -High 5.0 FAR or 25 125 units/acre stories Urban UN 0 Neighborhood 1.5 FAR or 3 30du/ac stories -Medium Low LR I District Center: Transit -oriented and high density urban villages consisting of visually striking and dynamic buildings and spaces with a wide range and mix of residential, live/work, commercial, hotel, and employment —generating uses. PD Urban Neighborhood: Medium density urban neighborhoods with a mix of single and multi -family housing; mixed -use residential with ground floor retail, services, and restaurants; cultural uses; and public and private open spaces. RUFlFA160 WILD WING., I Southeast corner: B lk m now Southeast corner: Brist L?2 - A. 1 �jI 11 �,� 00 'toot `M/11- NANO err milli on ISSUES ANALYZED IN PEI R SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agriculture/Forestry Resources* Hazards & Hazardous Materials Air Quality Hydrology & Water Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology & Soils Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Significant and unavoidable impact Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities & Service Systems Wildfire* * Agricultural/Forestry Resources and Wildfire addressed in Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Significant Aft, FINAL PEIR Pi( SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • Contents: Draft PEIR Written comments received and responses • Errata to the Draft PEIR • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) • Certification of the Final PEIR The Final PEIR is under consideration for certification by the City Council ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMUNICATION SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • January 10, 2022 - AG Email • October 1b, 202U - A6 Letter Communication to City • EJ policies not sufficient to reduce unique and compounded health risks • EJ policies do not adequately address the specific requirements of SB 1000 • EJ policies should include specific commitments (lead, air pollution, buffers) • Provide robust community engagement • November 4, 2020 - Follow up conference call with AG • November 8, 2021 - AG Email — Consider adopting policies that address lead exposure • November 18, 2021 - City Response — Outline the action addressing AG lead recommendation • December 22, 2021 - City Initiated Conference Call w/AG - Outline City EJ efforts including public outreach & engagement, and draft policies and implementation actions addressing lead • December 23, 2021 - City Follow Up Email to AG NEXT STEPS SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN General Plan Implementation —Next Steps: • Zoning, Development Standards update • Provide and allocate resources for new programs and services • Implement actions • Living Document - Annual and five year reviews FOCUS AREA INTERIM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN • Interim Development Standards: • Land Use Element Appendix A • Objective development standards • Development Review evaluation • Sunshine Ordinance community meetings • Development Review complete • Project approval and building permits STAFF RECOMMENDATION SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Take the following actions: 1. Certify Final PEIR in compliance with CEQA and Certify that: a) The Project PEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA b) There are no environmentally superior alternatives to the Project that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft PEIR; and c) Concur with the findings and mitigation measures contained in the PEIR; and d) Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to certification of the PEIR 2. Adopt General Plan Update No. 2020-06 3. Adopt a resolution overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, including supportive findings azCOMMUNITY ELEMENT i SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Reinforces the City's values of recreation, culture, education, health and wellness, and cultivates opportunities for improved quality of life for all residents. Focus • Build and maintain neighborhood social capital and capacity • Provide equitable distribution of recreational, cultural, educational facilities, and systems • Build on and showcase diverse cultures • Programs and services to improve quality of life • Address key health issues facing residents, with particular focus on those most in need and underserved MOBILITY ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose Mai$ The City's blueprint for moving people, goods, and resources by providing more complete streets, offering ways to be more active, and conserving natural resources. Focus • Layered networks to provide a balanced mobility system • Complete streets designed to enable safe access for users of all ages and all modes of transportation • Travel modes prioritized along corridors based on: 1. Existing and surrounding land use 2. Roadway classification 3. Street typology ECONOMIC PROSPERITY -� ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose Defines Santa Ana's role in the regional economy by expanding and enhancing job opportunities, attracting and retaining businesses to provide sufficient revenue for public services. Focus • Link economic prosperity with land use distribution and policies • Provide supply of land for future base sector industries • Achieve a rising standard of living • Support education and employment training to improve access to higher -wage and emerging occupations • Support development which uses land efficiently, offers flexibility to changing resident and business needs, and improves environmental quality PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose Provides the City's diverse population with quality services and infrastructure, including accessible public facilities and enhanced public safety. Focus • Address existing and future public facility needs • Improve quality of life through use of appropriate development exactions • Coordination with community networks to aid vulnerable populations in preparing for emergencies, evacuation, and recovery • Protection of life, property, and environment through high level of emergency, hazard prevention, and safety education • Provide water quality and service that meets or exceeds standards CONSERVATION ELEMENT Ak SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose Identifies the community's natural resources and illustrates the benefits for retention, enhancement, and development of these resources to improve the quality of life and the environment as a whole. Focus • Protect and manage air, water, and energy resources to create a healthy, sustainable, and equitable path forward • Preserve remaining stretches of undisturbed plant and wildlife environment • Reduce health hazards due to air pollution, water contamination, or soil contamination • EJ mapping and identification of issues affecting EJ communities _ OPEN SPACE ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLANnow ..� Purpose } Identifies and preserves open space areas that provide value to the community and enrich the quality of life by providing value in the form of recreation, health, biodiversity, wildlife conservation and aesthetics. Focus • Support creation of Park Master Plan to guide the acquisition, development, maintenance and programming of parks, recreation facilities, trails and open space to meet community needs • Maintaining the goal of reaching 2 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents • Prioritize the creation and dedication of new public parkland over the collection of impact fees • Create Park Opportunity Fund and Park Foundation to raise monies for park creation NOISE ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose Establishes noise levels in the community, prepares noise contours to guide land use decisions, and establishes measures that address current and future noise impacts. Focus • Update City's noise ordinance to provide clear and enforceable standards • Avoid placement of noise sensitive land uses in close proximity to noise generators • Implement noise reducing measures in new development through site design and technology • Mitigate transit noise through partnership with regional and state agencies l n ID SANDBAGS SAFETY ELEMENT, RLIMIT PER ESIDENCE SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN s Purpose Combines the Public Safety and Seismic Safety Elements in an effort to eliminate and minimize risks associated with natural and human -generated hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and hazardous materials. Focus • Public health and safety and protection from natural and human -induced disasters • Protect life and minimize property damage caused by flood • Protect residents from contaminated sites • Minimize risks associated with geologic and seismic hazards • Study most significant potential climate change risks and vulnerabilities HISTORIC PRESERVATION a, ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose s: ti Auf1KFA5T ` - 1. �,. --: i�� _ ._ � • . -. Provides guidance in developing and implementing activities that ensure that protection of architectural, historical, cultural, and archaeological resources are part of the City's planning, development, and permitting processes. Focus • Highlight Santa Ana's cultural and architectural heritage as part of City's identity and brand • Preserve and enhance historic sensitive areas, neighborhoods, and resources to maintain unique sense of place • Acknowledge human element of historic preservation • Strengthen and update historic preservation program with best practices • Make historic preservation program accessible to more residents �+ F URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Purpose Establishes the long-range vision for the physical development, visual qualities, and sensory experience of the City to orchestrate a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing urban environment. Focus • Maintain and strengthen distinct visual quality and sense of place • Identify key components that define the visual form and provide framework for continued evolution • Enhance streetscape, greenscape, and urban forest • Promote sustainable and innovative design practices • Ensure new development is compatible and relates to existing context Publish Notice of Preparation of DPEIR - — Planning Commission directed Prepare Final EIR including (30 days) Staff to conduct additional Response to Comments outreach within EJ Communities . Scoping Meeting Prepare and Publish PEIR (45 days) nded Presented the Final PEIR to Planning Commission Prepare Draft Recirculated EIR (EIR can be limited to chapters requiring modification. No NOP or Scoping Meeting required) Public and Agency Review , of Draft EIR (45 days) Planning Commission Study Session (not CEQA requirement) Public and Agency Review k of Draft EIR (45 days) Planning Commission Hearing City Council Hearing Final Notice of Determination GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT PEIR CITY OF SANTA ANA Figure 5.8-2 - Height Restrictions per Federal Air Regulations Part 77 �••—•• Cayol Santa Ana Eevation Cantcura in feet all mean sea level )AMSL) Airport Sul'face4 0 Hodzorlral Surface- Elevation 205 Feet AMSL I� oepaaure Surface - slope 50'.1 (Ho,zontal.Vertical) O Transitional Such- - Slope 7_I)H tal Vertical) 0 Conical Surface Slope 20', 1)Horizontal .Vertical 0 Runway- Elevation 54 Feet AMSL Focus Areas Q�I Sam Main Street I—wJ 2 Grand Avol Tih Street O3 West Saraa Ana Boulevard Q 4 55 FrylDyer Road Q 5 South OmM Street Source: orange County Avpod Laud use Commission amo4 E+v n— Land Use Flan lo, John Wayne Aupod, 2009 P1 TWF Ikr GARDEN GROVE 1 Garden Greve Blvd FOUNTAIN VALLEY i T Slater qve j Seaerstmm Avs Talbert Avs _ MACA1tb Y1 elvd ` LL m �.. Edinger Ave / Y¢ \ pbTUSTIN yer A 41ron qv 4� IRVINE COSTA MESA a os r k— nrh d smb Aa 2efoe@ P1W AW t7AR@1 Is Adapted and Existing Areas 0 South Main Sheet ®0 Adaptive Reuse Project Incentrve Area © Midtown Speciic Plan 0 Grand &Vl7th Streel ® Bristol Street Conidar Specific Plan ''� Mew East Mixed Use Overlay Zone © West Santa Ana Boulevard O 0 Harbor Mired Use Transit Cornder Spenhc Plan Main%ace Specific Plan 0 South Bristol Street 0 Transil Zoning Code