Laserfiche WebLink
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT <br />ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES <br />Explanation of the Rationale: The project site is not located within a zone of earthquake induced <br />landslide. Additionally, similar to the overall City topography, the project site is relatively flat; thus, <br />there would be no hazards related to slope stability. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-13.) <br />Threshold G-2: The Proiect would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to geology <br />and soils related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Draft Supplemental EIR, <br />pp. 4.4-13 — 4.4-14). <br />Explanation of the Rationale: Construction of the Project would result in ground surface <br />disturbance during excavation and grading that could create the potential for erosion of soils to <br />occur. During construction, transport of sediments by stormwater runoff and wind would be <br />prevented through BMPs, such as implementation of Rule 403 dust control measures required by <br />the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan <br />for construction activities. In addition, the proposed addition of open space and expanded <br />landscaping would result in less impervious area compared to existing conditions, reducing the <br />potential for runoff and soil erosion. Therefore, with implementation of a project -specific Storm <br />Water Pollution Prevention Plan, associated BMPs during construction, and installation of <br />landscaping and open space to stabilize soils throughout the Project site, the Project would not <br />result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant. <br />(Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.4-13 — 4.4-14.) <br />Threshold G-5: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the <br />use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where <br />sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impact to geology and soils related to <br />the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Draft Supplemental EIR, <br />p. 4.4-18.) <br />Additionally, the City finds that the Project will implement the following regulatory requirement <br />(Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-4): <br />RR G-3: Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 39-51 requires that all buildings or structures <br />within the city that require plumbing fixtures must be connected to a public sewer. <br />Explanation of the Rationale: The Project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater <br />disposal systems. Sanitary wastewater at the project site is handled through connections to the <br />existing sanitary sewer system. No impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 4.4-18.) <br />4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS <br />Threshold GHG-1: The Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly <br />or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to <br />greenhouse gases emissions. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 4.5-18 — 4.5-23.) <br />City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project <br />August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations <br />4-13 <br />