Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket_11-8-21Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda November 8, 2021 5:30 P.M. Council Chamber 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA  Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom. Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961 Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961 Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961 *For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30 second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public comment during the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom. For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructions provided at the end of this agenda. To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details to the right of the agenda title.  THOMAS MORRISSEY Chair, Ward 6 Representative ERIC M. ALDERETE Citywide Representative BAO PHAM Vice­Chair, Ward 1 Representative MIGUEL CALDERON Ward 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOS Ward 3 Representative MARK McLOUGHLIN Ward 4 Representative ALAN WOO Ward 5 Representative MinhThai Executive Director John Funk Legal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICP Planning Manager Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings. CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair Bao Pham, Vice­Chair Eric M. Alderete Miguel Calderon Mark McLoughlin Isuri S. Ramos Alan Woo  Executive Director Minh Thai Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher Recording Secretary Sarah Bernal  ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS a.Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.   b.Excused Absences Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners. *End of Consent Calendar* BUSINESS CALENDAR Public Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter on October 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 was published in the OC Register on October 28. 1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­ Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner). Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 as conditioned. 2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall major wireless facility disguised as a mono­pine. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 as conditioned. 3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square miles in Central Orange County. Project Applicant:        City of Santa Ana Proposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana will hold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­ term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years, through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physical development, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life for the community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas for potential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential building square footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City is requesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ ana.org/general­plan Environmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020 and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03, was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated Draft PEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality, Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliance with regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (as appropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant. Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 (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; and 2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 Administrative Matters 4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facing elevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour.  Recommended Action: Receive and file. *End of Business Calendar* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM is canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Conditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional planned sign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit short term rentals. APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda. To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details to the right of the agenda title.  THOMAS MORRISSEY Chair, Ward 6 Representative ERIC M. ALDERETE Citywide Representative BAO PHAM Vice­Chair, Ward 1 Representative MIGUEL CALDERON Ward 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOS Ward 3 Representative MARK McLOUGHLIN Ward 4 Representative ALAN WOO Ward 5 Representative MinhThai Executive Director John Funk Legal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICP Planning Manager Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings. CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair Bao Pham, Vice­Chair Eric M. Alderete Miguel Calderon Mark McLoughlin Isuri S. Ramos Alan Woo  Executive Director Minh Thai Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher Recording Secretary Sarah Bernal  ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS a.Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.   b.Excused Absences Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners. *End of Consent Calendar* BUSINESS CALENDAR Public Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter on October 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 was published in the OC Register on October 28. 1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­ Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner). Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 as conditioned. 2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall major wireless facility disguised as a mono­pine. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 as conditioned. 3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square miles in Central Orange County. Project Applicant:        City of Santa Ana Proposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana will hold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­ term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years, through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physical development, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life for the community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas for potential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential building square footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City is requesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ ana.org/general­plan Environmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020 and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03, was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated Draft PEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality, Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliance with regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (as appropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant. Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 (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; and 2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 Administrative Matters 4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facing elevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour.  Recommended Action: Receive and file. *End of Business Calendar* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM is canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Conditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional planned sign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit short term rentals. APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda.To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details tothe right of the agenda title. THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording Secretary In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings. CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair Bao Pham, Vice­Chair Eric M. Alderete Miguel Calderon Mark McLoughlin Isuri S. Ramos Alan Woo  Executive Director Minh Thai Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher Recording Secretary Sarah Bernal  ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS a.Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.   b.Excused Absences Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners. *End of Consent Calendar* BUSINESS CALENDAR Public Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter on October 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 was published in the OC Register on October 28. 1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­ Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner). Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 as conditioned. 2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall major wireless facility disguised as a mono­pine. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 as conditioned. 3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square miles in Central Orange County. Project Applicant:        City of Santa Ana Proposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana will hold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­ term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years, through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physical development, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life for the community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas for potential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential building square footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City is requesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ ana.org/general­plan Environmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020 and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03, was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated Draft PEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality, Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliance with regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (as appropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant. Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 (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; and 2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 Administrative Matters 4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facing elevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour.  Recommended Action: Receive and file. *End of Business Calendar* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM is canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Conditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional planned sign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit short term rentals. APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda.To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details tothe right of the agenda title. THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.  b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.*End of Consent Calendar*BUSINESS CALENDAR Public Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, and Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10 days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic Meeting Information page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendation on Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, Specific Developments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter on October 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 was published in the OC Register on October 28. 1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­ Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner). Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 as conditioned. 2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner. Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall major wireless facility disguised as a mono­pine. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed for this project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 as conditioned. 3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square miles in Central Orange County. Project Applicant:        City of Santa Ana Proposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana will hold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­ term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years, through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physical development, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life for the community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas for potential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential building square footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City is requesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ ana.org/general­plan Environmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020 and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03, was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated Draft PEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality, Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliance with regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (as appropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant. Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 (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; and 2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 Administrative Matters 4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facing elevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour.  Recommended Action: Receive and file. *End of Business Calendar* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM is canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Conditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional planned sign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit short term rentals. APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda.To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details tothe right of the agenda title. THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.  b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.*End of Consent Calendar*BUSINESS CALENDARPublic Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits,Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, andPublic Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic MeetingInformation page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendationon Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, SpecificDevelopments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for finaldetermination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter onOctober 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 waspublished in the OC Register on October 28.1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner).Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high majorwireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­11 as conditioned.2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (PropertyOwner)Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall majorwireless facility disguised as a mono­pine.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed forthis project. Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 as conditioned. 3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square miles in Central Orange County. Project Applicant:        City of Santa Ana Proposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana will hold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­ term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years, through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physical development, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life for the community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas for potential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, Grand Avenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areas is estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential building square footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City is requesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ ana.org/general­plan Environmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020 and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03, was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated Draft PEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality, Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliance with regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (as appropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant. Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03 (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; and 2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 Administrative Matters 4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facing elevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour.  Recommended Action: Receive and file. *End of Business Calendar* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM is canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Conditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional planned sign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit short term rentals. APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 5 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda.To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details tothe right of the agenda title. THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.  b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.*End of Consent Calendar*BUSINESS CALENDARPublic Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits,Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, andPublic Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic MeetingInformation page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendationon Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, SpecificDevelopments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for finaldetermination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter onOctober 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 waspublished in the OC Register on October 28.1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner).Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high majorwireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­11 as conditioned.2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (PropertyOwner)Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall majorwireless facility disguised as a mono­pine.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­17 as conditioned.3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, CasePlanner.Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square milesin Central Orange County.Project Applicant:        City of Santa AnaProposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana willhold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’sGeneral Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years,through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physicaldevelopment, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life forthe community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas forpotential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, GrandAvenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, andSouth Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areasis estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential buildingsquare footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City isrequesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental ImpactReport (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmentalfindings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) andadoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No.2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ana.org/general­planEnvironmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03,was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project andidentify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated DraftPEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmentalimpacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality,Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise,Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliancewith regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (asappropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less thansignificant.Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council:1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental ImpactReport No. 2020­03 (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; and 2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 Administrative Matters 4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facing elevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour.  Recommended Action: Receive and file. *End of Business Calendar* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM is canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Conditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facility disguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional planned sign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit short term rentals. APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 6 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda.To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details tothe right of the agenda title. THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.  b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.*End of Consent Calendar*BUSINESS CALENDARPublic Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits,Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, andPublic Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic MeetingInformation page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendationon Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, SpecificDevelopments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for finaldetermination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter onOctober 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 waspublished in the OC Register on October 28.1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner).Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high majorwireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­11 as conditioned.2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (PropertyOwner)Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall majorwireless facility disguised as a mono­pine.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­17 as conditioned.3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, CasePlanner.Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square milesin Central Orange County.Project Applicant:        City of Santa AnaProposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana willhold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’sGeneral Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years,through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physicaldevelopment, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life forthe community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas forpotential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, GrandAvenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, andSouth Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areasis estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential buildingsquare footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City isrequesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental ImpactReport (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmentalfindings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) andadoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No.2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ana.org/general­planEnvironmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03,was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project andidentify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated DraftPEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmentalimpacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality,Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise,Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliancewith regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (asappropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less thansignificant.Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council:1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental ImpactReport No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including adoption of environmentalfindings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of aStatement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program; and2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06Administrative Matters4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facingelevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour. Recommended Action: Receive and file.*End of Business Calendar*STAFF COMMENTSCOMMISSIONER COMMENTSADJOURNMENTThe next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PMis canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the CouncilChambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMSConditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facilitydisguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street.Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41(Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional plannedsign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit shortterm rentals.APPEAL INFORMATIONThe formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 7 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaNovember 8, 20215:30 P.M.Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA Members of the public may attend this meeting in­person or join via Zoom.Join from your computer: https://zoom.us/j/81261049961Join from your mobile phone via Zoom App. Meeting ID: 81261049961Dial in from a mobile phone or landline.(669) 900­ 6833; Meeting ID:  81261049961*For viewing only: www.youtube.com/cityofsantaanavideos. Please note: There is up to a 30second delay when viewing the meeting via YouTube. If you plan to provide a public commentduring the meeting, please join the meeting via Zoom.For detailed participation and commenting options, please review the instructionsprovided at the end of this agenda.To download or view each item, select either Download PDF or View Item Details tothe right of the agenda title. THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the October 11, 2021 meeting.  b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.*End of Consent Calendar*BUSINESS CALENDARPublic Hearing:The Planning Commission decision on Conditional Use Permits,Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, Minor Exceptions, Site Plan Review, andPublic Convenience or Necessity Determinations are final unless appealed within 10days of the decision by any interested party or group (refer to the Basic MeetingInformation page for more information). The Planning Commission recommendationon Zoning and General Plan amendments, Development Agreements, SpecificDevelopments, and Specific Plans will be forwarded to the City Council for finaldetermination. Legal notice for item nos. 1 – 2 was published in the OC Reporter onOctober 29 and notices were mailed on said date. Legal notice for item no. 3 waspublished in the OC Register on October 28.1.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­11 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T­Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner).Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot high majorwireless communications facility disguised as a mono­palm.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020­68 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­11 as conditioned.2.Conditional Use Permit No. 2021­17 – Ivan Orozco, Case Planner.Project Location:   601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M­2)land use designation zoning district.Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (PropertyOwner)Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional UsePermit No. 2021­17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60­foot tall majorwireless facility disguised as a mono­pine.Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determinationthat the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/ExistingFacilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021­98 will be filed forthis project.Recommended Action: Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use PermitNo. 2021­17 as conditioned.3.Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020­03and General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06 – Melanie McCann, CasePlanner.Project Location:         The City of Santa Ana, encompassing 27.3 square milesin Central Orange County.Project Applicant:        City of Santa AnaProposed Project:The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana willhold a public hearing to consider action on the comprehensive update of the City’sGeneral Plan. The eleven elements of the General Plan Update will provide a long­term policy direction and communicate the vision and values for the next 25 years,through 2045. The General Plan goals and policies will guide the City’s physicaldevelopment, fiscal and environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life forthe community. The proposed General Plan identifies Five Focus Areas forpotential change and new growth. These areas include South Main Street, GrandAvenue/17th Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard, 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, andSouth Bristol Street. The total long­term potential growth within these Focus Areasis estimated at 17,575 new housing units, 2,263,130 non­residential buildingsquare footage and 6,616 jobs. In order to facilitate the project, the City isrequesting (1) certification of a Final Recirculated Program Environmental ImpactReport (PEIR) No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including environmentalfindings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) andadoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoringand Reporting Program; and, (2) approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No.2020­06 for the comprehensive update to the General Plan. https://www.santa­ana.org/general­planEnvironmental Impact:In accordance with the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), a Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR, August 2020and Recirculated Draft PEIR, August 2021), Environmental Review No. 2020­03,was prepared for the project to analyze the potential impacts of the project andidentify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The Recirculated DraftPEIR indicates there may be significant unavoidable adverse environmentalimpacts associated with the following environmental categories: Air Quality,Cultural Resources (historic resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise,Recreation, and Population and Housing (population growth). Upon compliancewith regulatory requirements and recommended mitigation measures (asappropriate), all other environmental impacts were found to be less thansignificant.Recommended Action:  Recommend that the City Council:1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental ImpactReport No. 2020­03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including adoption of environmentalfindings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of aStatement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program; and2.Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020­06Administrative Matters4.Planning Commission review of architectural updates to street­facingelevations at the Westview Housing Residential Community located at2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue – Ali Pezeshkpour. Recommended Action: Receive and file.*End of Business Calendar*STAFF COMMENTSCOMMISSIONER COMMENTSADJOURNMENTThe next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for November 22, 2021 at 5:30 PMis canceled. The next meeting will be held on December 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the CouncilChambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMSConditional Use Permit 21­13 to allow a new wireless communications facilitydisguised as a mono­pine for the property located at 2112 E. 4th Street.Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2021­04 to amend various sections of Chapter 41(Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code relating to family daycare, regional plannedsign program regulations, home occupation permits, and to define and prohibit shortterm rentals.APPEAL INFORMATIONThe formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­dayappeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the dayfollowing the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision orrequirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, orgroup. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the requiredfiling fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of theCommission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observedholiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the nextday City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government CodeSec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a publichearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (orsomeone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received bythe Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing.MEETING INFORMATIONIf you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials.1. Connecting directly from your computer:Click on the link on top of this agenda ORGo to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The MeetingID is listed at the top of this agenda.To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being isdiscussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us knowyou wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.2. Connecting via the Zoom App:Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store.Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, yourname, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being isdiscussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us knowyou wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline:Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed atthe top of this agenda.To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being isdiscussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 8 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda October 11, 2021 5:30 P.M, Council Chamber 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA  THOMAS MORRISSEY Chair, Ward 6 Representative ERIC M. ALDERETE Citywide Representative BAO PHAM Vice­Chair, Ward 1 Representative MIGUEL CALDERON Ward 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOS Ward 3 Representative MARK McLOUGHLIN Ward 4 Representative ALAN WOO Ward 5 Representative MinhThai Executive Director John Funk Legal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICP Planning Manager Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings. CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair Bao Pham, Vice­Chair Eric M. Alderete Miguel Calderon Mark McLoughlin Isuri S. Ramos Alan Woo  Executive Director Minh Thai Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher Recording Secretary Sarah Bernal  ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS a.Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from the September 13, 2021 meeting.  Minutes:  b.Excused Absences Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners. Moved by Commissioner McLoughlin, seconded by Commissioner Alderete to Approve Consent Calendar items: Approve Minutes and Excuse the absence of Commissioner Calderon . YES: 6 – Tom Morrissey, Mark McLoughlin, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Eric Alderete NO: 0 –  ABSTAIN: 0 –  ABSENT: 1 – Miguel Calderon Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass *End of Consent Calendar* WORK STUDY SESSION  1.Draft General Plan Housing Element Update Overview – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Minutes: Recording Secretary Reported that written communication was received and distributed.  The following individual spoke on this item: Karen Rodriguez, representing Rise Up Willowick.  *End of Work Study Session* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 25, 2021 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ­ Housing Opportunity Ordinance APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 1 Planning Commission 10/11/2021 11/8/2021 Planning Commission a –1 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaOctober 11, 20215:30 P.M,Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording Secretary In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting, contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supporting documentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings. CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, Chair Bao Pham, Vice­Chair Eric M. Alderete Miguel Calderon Mark McLoughlin Isuri S. Ramos Alan Woo  Executive Director Minh Thai Senior Asst. City Attorney John Funk Planning Manager Fabiola Zelaya Melicher Recording Secretary Sarah Bernal  ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS a.Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes from the September 13, 2021 meeting.  Minutes:  b.Excused Absences Recommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners. Moved by Commissioner McLoughlin, seconded by Commissioner Alderete to Approve Consent Calendar items: Approve Minutes and Excuse the absence of Commissioner Calderon . YES: 6 – Tom Morrissey, Mark McLoughlin, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Eric Alderete NO: 0 –  ABSTAIN: 0 –  ABSENT: 1 – Miguel Calderon Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass *End of Consent Calendar* WORK STUDY SESSION  1.Draft General Plan Housing Element Update Overview – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Minutes: Recording Secretary Reported that written communication was received and distributed.  The following individual spoke on this item: Karen Rodriguez, representing Rise Up Willowick.  *End of Work Study Session* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 25, 2021 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ­ Housing Opportunity Ordinance APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 2 Planning Commission 10/11/2021 11/8/2021 Planning Commission a –2 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaOctober 11, 20215:30 P.M,Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the September 13, 2021 meeting. Minutes: b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.Moved by Commissioner McLoughlin, seconded by Commissioner Alderete toApprove Consent Calendar items: Approve Minutes and Excuse the absence ofCommissioner Calderon . YES: 6 – Tom Morrissey, Mark McLoughlin, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, Eric Alderete NO: 0 –  ABSTAIN: 0 –  ABSENT: 1 – Miguel Calderon Status: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass *End of Consent Calendar* WORK STUDY SESSION  1.Draft General Plan Housing Element Update Overview – Melanie McCann, Case Planner. Minutes: Recording Secretary Reported that written communication was received and distributed.  The following individual spoke on this item: Karen Rodriguez, representing Rise Up Willowick.  *End of Work Study Session* STAFF COMMENTS COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 25, 2021 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ­ Housing Opportunity Ordinance APPEAL INFORMATION The formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­day appeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645 holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 3 Planning Commission 10/11/2021 11/8/2021 Planning Commission a –3 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaOctober 11, 20215:30 P.M,Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the September 13, 2021 meeting. Minutes: b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.Moved by Commissioner McLoughlin, seconded by Commissioner Alderete toApprove Consent Calendar items: Approve Minutes and Excuse the absence ofCommissioner Calderon .YES: 6 – Tom Morrissey, Mark McLoughlin, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, EricAldereteNO: 0 –  ABSTAIN: 0 –  ABSENT: 1 – Miguel CalderonStatus: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass*End of Consent Calendar*WORK STUDY SESSION 1.Draft General Plan Housing Element Update Overview – Melanie McCann, CasePlanner.Minutes: Recording Secretary Reported that written communication was receivedand distributed. The following individual spoke on this item:Karen Rodriguez, representing Rise Up Willowick. *End of Work Study Session*STAFF COMMENTSCOMMISSIONER COMMENTSADJOURNMENTThe next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 25, 2021 at 5:30 PM in theCouncil Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMSPublic Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ­ Housing Opportunity OrdinanceAPPEAL INFORMATIONThe formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­dayappeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the day following the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision or requirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, or group. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the required filing fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of the Commission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observed holiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government Code Sec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing. MEETING INFORMATION If you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials. 1. Connecting directly from your computer: Click on the link on top of this agenda OR Go to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 2. Connecting via the Zoom App: Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store. Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, your name, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us know you wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes. 3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline: Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda. To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being is discussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes. Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 4 Planning Commission 10/11/2021 11/8/2021 Planning Commission a –4 Planning CommissionRegular Meeting AgendaOctober 11, 20215:30 P.M,Council Chamber22 Civic Center PlazaSanta Ana, CA THOMAS MORRISSEYChair, Ward 6 RepresentativeERIC M. ALDERETECitywide Representative BAO PHAMVice­Chair,Ward 1 RepresentativeMIGUEL CALDERONWard 2 Representative ISURI S. RAMOSWard 3 RepresentativeMARK McLOUGHLINWard 4 Representative ALAN WOOWard 5 RepresentativeMinhThaiExecutive DirectorJohn FunkLegal Counsel Fabiola Zelaya Melicher, AICPPlanning Manager Sarah BernalRecording SecretaryIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this Meeting,contact Michael Ortiz, City ADA Program Coordinator, at (714) 647­5624. Notification 48 hours prior to the Meeting will enablethe City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. The City Council agenda and supportingdocumentation can be found on the City’s website – www.santa­ana.org/city­meetings.CALL TO ORDER Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey, ChairBao Pham, Vice­ChairEric M. AldereteMiguel CalderonMark McLoughlinIsuri S. RamosAlan Woo Executive Director Minh ThaiSenior Asst. City Attorney John FunkPlanning Manager Fabiola Zelaya MelicherRecording Secretary Sarah Bernal ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEPUBLIC COMMENTS (non agenda items)CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMSa.MinutesRecommended Action: Approve Minutes from the September 13, 2021 meeting. Minutes: b.Excused AbsencesRecommended Action: Excuse absent commissioners.Moved by Commissioner McLoughlin, seconded by Commissioner Alderete toApprove Consent Calendar items: Approve Minutes and Excuse the absence ofCommissioner Calderon .YES: 6 – Tom Morrissey, Mark McLoughlin, Bao Pham, Isuri Ramos, Alan Woo, EricAldereteNO: 0 –  ABSTAIN: 0 –  ABSENT: 1 – Miguel CalderonStatus: 6 – 0 – 0 – 1 – Pass*End of Consent Calendar*WORK STUDY SESSION 1.Draft General Plan Housing Element Update Overview – Melanie McCann, CasePlanner.Minutes: Recording Secretary Reported that written communication was receivedand distributed. The following individual spoke on this item:Karen Rodriguez, representing Rise Up Willowick. *End of Work Study Session*STAFF COMMENTSCOMMISSIONER COMMENTSADJOURNMENTThe next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on October 25, 2021 at 5:30 PM in theCouncil Chambers located at 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMSPublic Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment ­ Housing Opportunity OrdinanceAPPEAL INFORMATIONThe formal action by the Planning Commission shall become effective after the ten­dayappeal period, unless the City Council in compliance with section 41­643, 41­644 or 41­645holds a public hearing on the matter, then the formal action will become effective on the dayfollowing the hearing and decision by the City Council. An appeal from the decision orrequirement of the Planning Commission may be made by any interested party, individual, orgroup. The appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Council, accompanied by the requiredfiling fee, and a copy sent to the Planning Department, within ten days of the date of theCommission's action, by 5:00 p.m. If the final day to appeal falls on a City Hall observedholiday or a day when City hall is closed, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the nextday City Hall is open for public business. Please note: Under California Government CodeSec. 65009, if you challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a publichearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (orsomeone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received bythe Planning Commission or City Council at or before the hearing.MEETING INFORMATIONIf you would like to learn how to use Zoom before the meeting, visit Zoom Video Tutorials.1. Connecting directly from your computer:Click on the link on top of this agenda ORGo to Zoom.us and click "Join a Meeting" at the top. Enter the Meeting ID. The MeetingID is listed at the top of this agenda.To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being isdiscussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us knowyou wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.2. Connecting via the Zoom App:Download the free Zoom Cloud Meetings app from your favorite app store.Launch the app and click on the blue Join a Meeting button. Enter the Meeting ID, yourname, and the blue Join button. The Meeting ID is listed at the top of this agenda.To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being isdiscussed, click on the button next to your name to virtually raise your hand and let us knowyou wish to speak. You will have 3 minutes.3. Dialing in from a mobile phone or landline:Dial (669) 900­9128. When prompted, enter the meeting ID. The Meeting ID is listed atthe top of this agenda.To speak during the meeting:  When you wish to comment on an item that is being isdiscussed, press *9 on your phone to virtually raise your hand. You will have 3 minutes.Submit a written comment You are invited to submit a written comment in one of the following ways: E­mail PBAecomments@santa­ana.org and reference the topic in the subject line. Mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. 5 Planning Commission 10/11/2021 11/8/2021 Planning Commission a –5 Planning and Building Agency Item # 1 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Planning Commission Staff Report November 8, 2021 Topic: CUP No. 2021-11 – Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal (2401 S. Pullman Street.) RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-11 as conditioned. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T-Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2021-11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot high major wireless (“mono-palm”) communications facility located at 2401 South Pullman Street. Pursuant to Section 41-198.3(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), major wireless communications facilities require approval of a CUP and are required to be renewed every 10 years. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request due to the facility’s location that minimizes aesthetic intrusion to the surrounding area and its ability to continue to provide a community benefit through wireless communications service and coverage. DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of CUP No. 2021-11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono-palm. The facility currently provides cellular coverage and call capacity to residential and commercial areas within the area. The facility’s equipment and antennas are located at the rear of an industrial development, and provides two existing mature palm trees on the site to assist with camouflaging the stealth facility. At this time, no new or additional antennas and/or equipment are being proposed. Table 1: Project Location and Information Item Information Project Address & Council Ward 2401 South Pullman Street (Ward 6) Nearest Intersection Pullman Street & Warner Avenue General Plan Designation Industrial (IND) Zoning Designation Light Industrial (M1) North Industrial East Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) Surrounding Land Uses South Industrial11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –1 CUP No. 2021-11 Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal November 8, 2021 Page 2 2 1 6 5 Item Information West Industrial Property Size 2.43 Acres Existing Site Development The site is currently developed with a 41,000-square foot industrial building, which is occupied by Del Amo Motorsports, and associated parking and landscaping. Use Permissions Allowed with approval of a CUP Uses Section 41-198.3(b)Zoning Code Sections Affected Operational Standards Section 41-198 Table 2: Development Standards Standards Required by SAMC Provided Screening Criteria A stealth facility Complies; mono-palm Site Selection Areas that will minimize aesthetic intrusion Complies; the facility is located within an industrial development area and the tower and equipment are located towards the rear of the property and away from sensitive land uses Height Criteria Not to exceed 60 feet in height from ground level as measured from the nearest street curb Complies; 60-feet high Landscaping Groundcover at the base of the facility and one twenty-four (24) inch box tree Complies; ground cover at the base of the tower and two existing palm trees adjacent to the tower Equipment Screening Decorative fencing such as wrought iron or block around the wireless facility Complies; 6-foot high wrought iron fence Project Background On October 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 99-28 to allow the construction of the subject mono-palm and equipment enclosure. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-198.3(b), a CUP is required for all major wireless communications facilities in the City. Furthermore, Section 41-198.13 states that major wireless communications facilities shall be approved for a period not to exceed 10 years. In 2009, staff received a submittal to allow a co-location of the three antennas and associated Equipment. Per City records, the request was processed and approved with the proposed modifications completed. As the current entitlements have reached the ten-year lifespan, the applicant is required to apply for a new CUP in order to maintain the entitlements current for the facility. Project Analysis CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –2 CUP No. 2021-11 Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal November 8, 2021 Page 3 2 1 6 5 inability to make these findings would result in a denial. In analyzing the CUP request, staff believes that the following analysis warrants staff’s recommendation. As part of the development review of the project, staff worked closely with the applicant to identify improvements to enhance the overall appearance of the site. These improvements include the replacement of all deteriorating and/or faded stealth branches and needles, and refreshing the antenna socks, as need. In addition, the applicant will be refreshing the existing landscape surrounding the facility to meet the conditions listed in the original entitlement. In processing wireless communications facilities, the City of Santa Ana must consider provisions contained within Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act [47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)], which limits the ability of local agencies to impose additional conditions of approval when cell phone tower permits are renewed. These limits include additional stealthing if such screening or stealthing was not required at the time of original construction and/or seismic retrofits. This location is optimal to provide the coverage necessary for existing and expanding service. The facility provides a benefit to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists who subscribe to mobile phone services by providing cellular and data capacity in the area. The facility will be in compliance with Federal law that governs health related issues for wireless facilities, including safety regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Finally, the use will continue to comply with all provisions pertaining to the construction and installation of wireless facilities identified in Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the SAMC. The facility continues to meet all height, location/zoning, and stealthing standards. The facility will not adversely affect the General Plan, as cellular facilities that are designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. Public Notification and Community Outreach Public notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. Copies of the public notice, including a 500-foot notification radius map, and the site posting are provided in Exhibit 6. There are no established Neighborhood Associations in the vicinity as the property is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses within the 500-foot radius. At the time this report was printed, no issues of concern were raised regarding the proposed CUP. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). This exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –3 CUP No. 2021-11 Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal November 8, 2021 Page 4 2 1 6 5 negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The project consists of the renewal of a permit of an existing wireless communications facility. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-68 will be filed for this project. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Resolution 2. Vicinity Zoning & Aerial Map 3. Site Photo 4. Site Plan & Equipment Plan 5. Elevations 6. Copy of Public Notices Submitted By: Ivan Orozco, Assistant Planner II Approved By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, Planning and Building Agency 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –4 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-11 AS CONDITIONED TO RENEW THE ENTITLEMENTS OF AN EXISTING 60-FOOT TALL MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT 2401 SOUTH PULLMAN STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T-Mobile West Corporation (“Applicant”), and Pullman LP (“Property Owner”), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No. 2021-11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot tall major wireless communication facility disguised as a mono-palm located at 2401 West Pullman Street. B. On October 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 99-28, allowing the construction of the subject major wireless communication facility. C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) Section 41-198.3(b), a Conditional Use Permit is required for major wireless communication facilities established in the City of Santa Ana. D. In addition, SAMC Section 41-198.13 states that major wireless communications facilities shall be approved for a period not to exceed ten (10) years. E. As the current facility has reached its ten-year term, the applicant is required to apply for a new CUP in order to maintain the entitlements for the current facility. F. On November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2021-11. G. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this CUP pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638, have been established for CUP No. 2021-11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot tall major wireless communication facility: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –5 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 of 8 1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The major wireless communication facility will continue to provide a service to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists who subscribe to cellular services by providing cellular service and data coverage for its users within the vicinity. The issuance of a new CUP will allow the provider to continue to provide a service to the surrounding community. 2. That the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The issuance of a new CUP to maintain a wireless facility at this location will not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as the facility will remain in compliance with Federal law that governs health related issues for wireless facilities, including safety regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Additionally, the applicant will be replacing antennas and equipment, similar to the equipment that already exists on the mono-palm and equipment enclosure. 3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area. The facility is compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area. The stealthing provided by the facility’s location at the rear of the site will maintain and increase the economic stability of the area by providing an additional service for business owners, workers, and residents in the area. Finally, the existing palm fronds will be replaced with larger more life-like palm fronds, thereby increasing the screening of the antennas. 4. That the proposed use shall comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use. The use will continue to comply with all provisions pertaining to the continuation of existing wireless facilities identified in Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the SAMC. The facility will continue to be stealthed by its design and surrounding landscape and will comply with other standards outlined in the SAMC. In addition, the two existing live palm trees, complementing the existing onsite landscaping, have been maintained and will continue compliment the adjacent mono- palm, assisting with the overall screening of the facility. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –6 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 8 5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City. The major wireless communication facility will not adversely affect the General Plan, as cellular facilities that are designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. Goal 1 promotes a balance of land uses to address community needs, which includes means of communication that will be served by the facility. In addition, Goals 3 and 5 require preservation of neighborhood character and integrity as well as mitigation of developments’ impacts. The mono- palm’s location minimizes visual impact on the area and assists with the stealthing of the equipment. Furthermore, Policy 2.2 encourages land uses that accommodate the City’s needs for services. Maintaining cellular coverage in the area maintains the services that are already available for business owners, workers, visitors and residents in the immediate vicinity. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from further review per Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities). Class 1 exemption applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption for Environmental Review No. 2021-68 will be filed for this project. Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –7 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 8 course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting a public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-11, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the project located at 2401 South Pullman Street. CUP No. 2021-11 expires 10 years from the date of the Planning Commission approval. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: The Request for Planning Commission Action dated November 8, 2021, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this referenced. ADOPTED this 8th day of November, 2021 AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: John M. Funk Senior Assistant City Attorney 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –8 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2021-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on November 8, 2021. Date: Recording Secretary 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –9 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-11 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2021-11 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The Applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. 1. All site improvements must conform to Development Project Review (DP Nos. 99- 62 and 2021-19) and in accordance with the plans attached to the staff report documenting the approved scope of the project. 2. Per the approved DP Nos. 99-62 and 2021-19, the applicant agrees to the following: a. Two live palm trees are to be planted to create contextual setting for the monopalm. One palm tree to be planted adjacent to the proposed cellular facility must be within 35 feet in height, with the second palm tree a minimum of 40 feet in height. The eight of the palm trees should be measured at the brown foot trunk per industry standard. b. Flowering vines must be installed at 10 foot intervals in the wrought iron fencing that surrounds the wireless facility. 3. The Applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. 4. The Applicant will provide a “single point of contact” in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to the City’s designated representative after approval of the new CUP. 5. The Applicant shall ensure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of permit Applicant to comply. 6. The Applicant of the facility shall submit and maintain current contact information at all times. The Applicant shall notify the City of any changes to the information submitted within 30 days of any change, including change of the name or legal 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –10 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 of 8 status of the owner or operator. This information shall include the following: (a) Identity, including name, address, and telephone number, and legal status of the owner of the facility including official identification numbers and FCC certification, and if different from the owner, the identity and legal status of the person or entity responsible for operating the facility. (b) Name address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies. (c) Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the utility provider, shall be posted at the communication facility site. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply at all times with all FCC regulations rules and standards. 7. CUP No. 2021-11 expires 10 years from the date of Planning Commission approval. 8. The Owner of the wireless facility shall remove the facility and all associated equipment and restore the property to its original condition within ninety (90) days after the abandonment, expiration or termination of the conditional use permit 9. Within 90 days of adoption of this resolution, a Property Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded against the property. The agreement will be subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained. Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions, and restrictions relating to the following: a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses); c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –11 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 8 of 8 applicable; d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about and immediately adjacent to the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); e) If Applicant and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms; f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement; g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City; and h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of this resolution. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –12 CUP No. 2021-11, T-Mobile Wireless Renewal2401 South Pullman Street Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Zoning & Aerial View ©2021 Digital Map Products.All rights reserved. Zoning Labels: Zoning 425 feet 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –13 IE82483A (SPRINT KEEP) OG52XC093-CA6622 (WIMAX) 2401 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Authorized Representative for T-Mobile EXISTING Southwest Elevation April 2021 Antennas 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –14 IE82483A (SPRINT KEEP) OG52XC093-CA6622 (WIMAX) 2401 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Authorized Representative for T-Mobile EXISTING Northeast Elevation April 2021 Equipment Location Antennas 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –15 A-1SITE PLAN1SITE PLANNO.DATE:DESCRIPTION:BY:SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SITE INFORMATION:IE82483ASEAL:PLANS PREPARED BY:CONSULTING GROUP: CDGAmerica TelecomLLC(WIMAX)SprintNowPart of2401 PULLMAN ST.SANTA ANA, CA 92705OG52XC093-CA6622 PULLMAN ST70°270°180°Date Signed 03/10/202111/8/2021Planning Commission 1 – 16  A-1.1 EQUIPMENT LAYOUTSNO.DATE:DESCRIPTION:BY:SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SITE INFORMATION:IE82483ASEAL:PLANS PREPARED BY:CONSULTING GROUP: CDGAmerica TelecomLLC(WIMAX)SprintNowPart of2401 PULLMAN ST.SANTA ANA, CA 92705OG52XC093-CA6622 70°270°180°32ENLARGED SITE PLAN1(E) EQUIPMENT LAYOUT(N) EQUIPMENT LAYOUTDate Signed 03/10/202111/8/2021Planning Commission 1 – 17  A-3ARCHITECTURALELEVATIONS2NEW SOUTHEAST ELEVATIONEXISTING SOUTHEAST ELEVATIONNO.DATE:DESCRIPTION:BY:SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SITE INFORMATION:IE82483ASEAL:PLANS PREPARED BY:CONSULTING GROUP: CDGAmerica TelecomLLC(WIMAX)SprintNowPart of2401 PULLMAN ST.SANTA ANA, CA 92705OG52XC093-CA6622 1··Date Signed 03/10/202111/8/2021Planning Commission 1 – 18  A-5ARCHITECTURALELEVATIONS2NEW SOUTHWEST ELEVATIONEXISTING SOUTHWEST ELEVATIONNO.DATE:DESCRIPTION:BY:SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SITE INFORMATION:IE82483ASEAL:PLANS PREPARED BY:CONSULTING GROUP: CDGAmerica TelecomLLC(WIMAX)SprintNowPart of2401 PULLMAN ST.SANTA ANA, CA 92705OG52XC093-CA6622 1··Date Signed 03/10/202111/8/2021Planning Commission 1 – 19  A-4ARCHITECTURALELEVATIONS2NEW NORTHEAST ELEVATIONEXISTING NORTHEAST ELEVATIONNO.DATE:DESCRIPTION:BY:SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:SITE INFORMATION:IE82483ASEAL:PLANS PREPARED BY:CONSULTING GROUP: CDGAmerica TelecomLLC(WIMAX)SprintNowPart of2401 PULLMAN ST.SANTA ANA, CA 92705OG52XC093-CA6622 1··Date Signed 03/10/202111/8/2021Planning Commission 1 – 20  O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R OR# ~SINCE 1921~ To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER. Thank you for using our newspaper. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are): Daily Journal Corporation Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California. Mailing Address : 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841 Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING CITY OF SANTA ANA/PLANNING & BUILDING 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 2ND FLR SANTA ANA, CA 92702 GPN GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE 2401 S. Pullman St 10/29/2021 Publication Total $113.15 $113.15 ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA (714) 543-2027 BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE (951) 784-0111 DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300 LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO (800) 640-4829 SAN JOSE POST-RECORD, SAN JOSE (408) 287-4866 THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO (916) 444-2355 THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT, SAN DIEGO (619) 232-3486 THE INTER-CITY EXPRESS, OAKLAND (510) 272-4747 Notice Type: Ad Description COPY OF NOTICE 3525052 !A000005860100! The charge(s) for this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision- making process.We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions . Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony,and will take action on the item described below.Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or group. Project Location:2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant:Alec Adams with Core Development Services,on behalf of T- Mobile West Corporation (Applicant)and Pullman LP (Property Owner). Proposed Project:The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2021-11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono-palm. Environmental Impact:The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines –Class 1/Existing Facilities.Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No.2020-68 will be filed for this project. Meeting Details:This matter will be heard on Monday,November 8,2021 at 5:30 p.m.in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza,Santa Ana,CA 92701.Members of the public may attend this meeting in-person or join via Zoom.For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting,please visit www.santa- ana.org/pb/meeting-particpation. Written Comments:If you are unable to participate in the meeting,you may send written comments by e-mail to PBAeComments@santa-ana.org (reference the Agenda Item #in the subject line)or mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary,City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza –M20,Santa Ana, CA 92701.Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s),including the full text of the discretionary item,may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at:www.santa-ana.org/cc/city- meetings Who To Contact For Questions:Should you have any questions,please contact Ivan Orozco with the Planning and Building Agency at Iorozco@santa- ana.org or 714-667-2763. Note:If you challenge the decision on the above matter,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at,or prior to,the public hearing. Si tiene preguntas en español,favor de llamar a Narcedalia Perez al (714)667- 2260. N u c n liên l c b ng ti ng Vi t, xin i n tho i cho Tony Lai s (714) 565-2627. 10/29/21 OR-3525052# 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –21 CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza ● P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org/pba NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. This notice is being sent to those who live or own property within 500 feet of the project site or who have expressed an interest in the proposed action. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, and will take action on the item described below. Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or group. Project Location: 2401 South Pullman Street located in the Light Industrial (M1) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Alec Adams with Core Development Services, on behalf of T-Mobile West Corporation (Applicant) and Pullman LP (Property Owner). Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-11 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono-palm. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2020-68 will be filed for this project. Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, November 8, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in-person or join via Zoom. For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit www.santa-ana.org/pb/meeting-particpation. Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to PBAeComments@santa-ana.org (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at: www.santa-ana.org/cc/city-meetings Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Ivan Orozco with the Planning and Building Agency at Iorozco@santa-ana.org or 714-667-2763. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –22 Note: If you challenge the decision on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing. Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de llamar a Angelina Becerra al (714) 667-2259. Nếu cần liên lạc bằng tiếng Việt, xin điện thoại cho Tony Lai số (714) 565-2627. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –23 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 1 –24 Planning and Building Agency Item # 2 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Planning Commission Staff Report November 8, 2021 Topic: CUP No. 2021-17 – Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal (601 S. Santa Fe Street.) RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-17 as conditioned. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2021-17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60- foot high major wireless (“mono-pine”) communications facility located at 601 South Santa Fe Street. Pursuant to Section 41-198.3(b) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), major wireless communications facilities require approval of a CUP and are required to be renewed every 10 years. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s request due to the facility’s location that minimizes aesthetic intrusion to the surrounding area and its ability to continue to provide a community benefit through wireless communications service and coverage. DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of CUP No. 2021-17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot high major wireless communications facility disguised as a mono-pine. The facility currently provides cellular coverage and call capacity to residential and commercial areas within the area. The facility’s equipment and antennas are located at the rear of an industrial development, and provides two existing mature palm trees on the site to assist with camouflaging the stealth facility. At this time, the applicant has indicated that no equipment modications are proposed. Table 1: Project Location and Information Item Information Project Address & Council Ward 601 South Santa Fe Street (Ward 6) Nearest Intersection Santa Fe Street & Chestnut Avenue General Plan Designation Industrial (IND) Zoning Designation Heavy Industrial (M2) North Industrial/Rail Road and Self-Storage East Industrial Surrounding Land Uses South Industrial11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –1 CUP No. 2021-17 Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal November 8, 2021 Page 2 2 1 6 7 Table 2: Development Standards Standards Required by SAMC Provided Screening Criteria A stealth facility Complies; mono-pine Site Selection Areas that will minimize aesthetic intrusion Complies; the facility is located within an industrial development area and the tower and equipment are located towards the rear of the property and away from sensitive land uses Height Criteria Not to exceed 60 feet in height from ground level as measured from the nearest street curb Complies; 60-feet high Landscaping Groundcover at the base of the facility and one twenty-four (24) inch box tree Complies; ground cover at the base of the tower and two existing pine trees adjacent to the tower Equipment Screening Decorative fencing such as wrought iron or block around the wireless facility Complies; minimum 6-foot high block wall at monopole and chain linked around equipment area Project Background On June 27, 2011, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 2011-14 to allow the construction of the subject mono-pine and equipment enclosure. Pursuant to SAMC Section 41-198.3(b), a CUP is required for all major wireless communications facilities in the City. Furthermore, Section 41-198.13 states that major wireless communications facilities shall be approved for a period not to exceed 10 years. As the current entitlements have reached the ten-year lifespan, the applicant is required to apply for a new CUP in order to maintain the entitlements current for the facility. Project Analysis CUP requests are governed by Section 41-638 of the SAMC. CUPs may be granted when it can be shown that the proposed project will not adversely impact the community. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the CUP. Conversely, the inability to make these findings would result in a denial. In analyzing the CUP request, staff believes that the following analysis warrants staff’s recommendation. West Industrial Property Size 0.44 Acres Existing Site Development The site is currently developed with a 8,510-square foot industrial building, which is occupied by Bluebird Towing, an additional mono- palm, and associated parking and landscaping. Use Permissions Allowed with approval of a CUP Uses Section 41-198.3(b)Zoning Code Sections Affected Operational Standards Section 41-198 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –2 CUP No. 2021-17 Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal November 8, 2021 Page 3 2 1 6 7 As part of the development review of the project, staff worked closely with the applicant to identify improvements to enhance the overall appearance of the site. These improvements include the replacement of all deteriorating and/or faded stealth branches and needles, and refreshing the antenna socks, as need. In processing wireless communications facilities, the City of Santa Ana must consider provisions contained within Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act [47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)], which limits the ability of local agencies to impose additional conditions of approval when cell phone tower permits are renewed. These limits include additional stealthing if such screening or stealthing was not required at the time of original construction and/or seismic retrofits. This location is optimal to provide the coverage necessary for existing and expanding service. The facility provides a benefit to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists who subscribe to mobile phone services by providing cellular and data capacity in the area. The facility will be in compliance with Federal law that governs health related issues for wireless facilities, including safety regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Finally, the use will continue to comply with all provisions pertaining to the construction and installation of wireless facilities identified in Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the SAMC. The facility continues to meet all height, location/zoning, and stealthing standards. The facility will not adversely affect the General Plan, as cellular facilities that are designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. Public Notification and Community Outreach Public notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with City and State regulations. Copies of the public notice, including a 500-foot notification radius map, and the site posting are provided in Exhibit 6. There are no established Neighborhood Associations in the vicinity as the property is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses within the notification area. At the time this report was printed, no issues of concern were raised regarding the proposed CUP. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 1 - Existing Facilities). This exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The project consists of the renewal of a permit of an existing wireless communications facility. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-98 will be filed for this project. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –3 CUP No. 2021-17 Major Wireless Communications Facility Renewal November 8, 2021 Page 4 2 1 6 7 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Resolution 2. Vicinity Zoning & Aerial Map 3. Site Photo 4. Site Plan & Equipment Plan 5. Elevations 6. Copy of Public Notices Submitted By: Ivan Orozco, Assistant Planner II Approved By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, Planning and Building Agency 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –4 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021-17 AS CONDITIONED TO RENEW THE ENTITLEMENTS OF AN EXISTING 60-FOOT TALL MAJOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT 601 SOUTH SANTA FE STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner), is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2021-17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot high major wireless (“mono- pine”) communications facility located at 601 South Santa Fe Street. B. On June 27, 2011, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 2011-14, allowing the construction of the subject major wireless communication facility. C. Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) Section 41-198.3(b), a Conditional Use Permit is required for major wireless communication facilities established in the City of Santa Ana. D. In addition, SAMC Section 41-198.13 states that major wireless communications facilities shall be approved for a period not to exceed ten (10) years. E. As the current facility has reached its ten-year term, the applicant is required to apply for a new CUP in order to maintain the entitlements for the current facility. F. On November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on CUP No. 2021-17. G. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this CUP pursuant to SAMC Section 41-638, have been established for CUP No. 2021-17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot tall major wireless communication facility: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –5 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 of 7 1. That the proposed use will provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. The major wireless communication facility will continue to provide a service to Santa Ana residents, businesses and motorists who subscribe to cellular services by providing cellular service and data coverage for its users within the vicinity. The issuance of a new CUP will allow the provider to continue to provide a service to the surrounding community. 2. That the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The issuance of a new CUP to maintain a wireless facility at this location will not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the area as the facility will remain in compliance with Federal law that governs health related issues for wireless facilities, including safety regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of properties surrounding the area. The facility is compatible with the surrounding area and will not adversely affect the economic viability in the area. The stealthing provided by the facility’s location at the rear of the site will maintain and increase the economic stability of the area by providing an additional service for business owners, workers, and residents in the area. 4. That the proposed use shall comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use. The use will continue to comply with all provisions pertaining to the continuation of existing wireless facilities identified in Chapter 41 (Zoning Code) of the SAMC. The facility will continue to be stealthed by its design and surrounding landscape and will comply with other standards outlined in the SAMC. 5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the General Plan or any specific plan of the City. The major wireless communication facility will not adversely affect the General Plan, as cellular facilities that are designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element. Goal 1 promotes a balance of land uses to address 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –6 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 7 community needs, which includes means of communication that will be served by the facility. In addition, Goals 3 and 5 require preservation of neighborhood character and integrity as well as mitigation of developments’ impacts. The mono- pine’s location minimizes visual impact on the area and assists with the stealthing of the equipment. Furthermore, Policy 2.2 encourages land uses that accommodate the City’s needs for services. Maintaining cellular coverage in the area maintains the services that are already available for business owners, workers, visitors and residents in the immediate vicinity. Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from further review per Section 15301 (Class 1 – Existing Facilities). Class 1 exemption applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Based on this analysis, a Notice of Exemption for Environmental Review No. 2021-98 will be filed for this project. Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action. Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting a public hearing hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-17, as conditioned in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the project located at 601 South Santa Fe Street. CUP No. 2021-17 expires 10 years from the date of the Planning Commission approval. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –7 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 7 hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: The Request for Planning Commission Action dated November 8, 2021, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this referenced. ADOPTED this 8th day of November, 2021 AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Thomas Morrissey Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: John M. Funk Senior Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2021-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on November 8, 2021. Date: Recording Secretary 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –8 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-17 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2021-17 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The Applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit. 1. All site improvements must conform to Development Project Review (DP Nos. 2004-53 and 2021-14) and in accordance with the plans attached to the staff report documenting the approved scope of the project. 2. The Applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. 3. The Applicant will provide a “single point of contact” in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to the City’s designated representative after approval of the new CUP. 4. The Applicant shall ensure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of permit Applicant to comply. 5. The Applicant of the facility shall submit and maintain current contact information at all times. The Applicant shall notify the City of any changes to the information submitted within 30 days of any change, including change of the name or legal status of the owner or operator. This information shall include the following: (a) Identity, including name, address, and telephone number, and legal status of the owner of the facility including official identification numbers and FCC certification, and if different from the owner, the identity and legal status of the person or entity responsible for operating the facility. (b) Name address and telephone number of a local contact person for emergencies. (c) Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the utility provider, shall be posted at the communication facility site. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –9 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 of 7 All wireless telecommunication facilities shall comply at all times with all FCC regulations rules and standards. 6. CUP No. 2021-17 expires 10 years from the date of Planning Commission approval. 7. The Applicant of the wireless facility shall remove the facility and all associated equipment and restore the property to its original condition within ninety (90) days after the abandonment, expiration or termination of the conditional use permit. 8. Within 90 days of adoption of this resolution, a Property Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded against the property. The agreement will be subject to review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly maintained. Applicant (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants, conditions, and restrictions relating to the following: a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.); b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses); c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as applicable; d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located thereupon (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about and immediately adjacent to the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –10 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 of 7 and related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable); e) If Applicant and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the Applicant is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the Applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with its terms; f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties, obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement; g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City; and h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of this resolution. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –11 CUP No. 2021 -17, T-Mobile Wireless Renewal601 South Santa Fe Street Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Zoning & Aerial View ©2021 Digital Map Products.All rights reserved. Zoning Labels: Zoning 313 feet 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –12 Wireless Facility Photos 601 S. Santa Fe, Santa Ana, CA 92705 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –13 NORTHCA45900601 3/4 S. SANTA FE STSANTA ANA, CA 9270503/16/2103/18/21AB90% CUP REVIEWCLIENT COMMENTSNO.DATEREVISIONDRAWNKMKMCONSULTANT:A&E CONSULTANT, SITE ACQUISITION AND PERMITTING:BLUEBIRDTOWING1OVERALL SITE PLAN0"30'30'15'22"x34" SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"11"x17" SCALE: 1" = 60'-0"E MAPLE AVEEXISTINGBUILDING (TYP)EXISTING PARENT PARCELPROPERTY LINE (TYP)EXISTING INGRESS/ EGRESS FROM EMAPLE AVEEXISTING SBAEQUIPMENT COMPOUNDAND TOWEROVERALLSITE PLANA-174'-5"3 2 ' - 8 "11/8/2021Planning Commission 2 – 14  CA45900601 3/4 S. SANTA FE STSANTA ANA, CA 9270503/16/2103/18/21AB90% CUP REVIEWCLIENT COMMENTSNO.DATEREVISIONDRAWNKMKMCONSULTANT:A&E CONSULTANT, SITE ACQUISITION AND PERMITTING:BLUEBIRDTOWING12'1'0"2'22"x34" SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"11"x17" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING ENLARGED EQUIPMENT PLANEXISTING WALLMOUNTED CABLE TRAY6'-5" (E) SPRINT LEASE AREA 29'-9" (E) SPRINT LEASE AREAEXISTING SPRINTEQUIPMENT CABINETSEXISTING MONOPOLEA-1.1ENLARGED SITE &EQUIPMENT PLANS1A-3.1N O R T H EXISTING OTHER CARRIEREQUIPMENT AREAEXISTING CHAINLINKED FENCEEXISTINGCONCRETE PADEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING SPRINTDISTRIBUTION CABINETEXISTING SPRINTJUNCTION BOXEXISTING SPRINTAMOB CABINETEXISTING GPSANTENNAEXISTING CABLESUPPORT FRAME1A-311/8/2021Planning Commission 2 – 15  EXISTING BOLLARDEXISTING TOP OF MONOPINE58.0' AGLEXISTING PANEL ANTENNA(TYP OF 6 - 2 PER SECTOR)EXISTING ANTENNA CENTERLINE45.0' AGLCA45900601 3/4 S. SANTA FE STSANTA ANA, CA 9270503/16/2103/18/21AB90% CUP REVIEWCLIENT COMMENTSNO.DATEREVISIONDRAWNKMKMCONSULTANT:A&E CONSULTANT, SITE ACQUISITION AND PERMITTING:BLUEBIRDTOWINGEXISTINGELEVATIONSA-3EXISTING SOUTHWEST ELEVATION24'3'2'1'0"4'22"x34" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"11"x17" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTING GRADE0.0' AGLEXISTING CMU WALLWITH SHROUD COVEREXISTING MONOPINEEXISTING MW ANTENNA(TYP OF 3 - 1 PER SECTOR)11/8/2021Planning Commission 2 – 16  CA45900601 3/4 S. SANTA FE STSANTA ANA, CA 9270503/16/2103/18/21AB90% CUP REVIEWCLIENT COMMENTSNO.DATEREVISIONDRAWNKMKMCONSULTANT:A&E CONSULTANT, SITE ACQUISITION AND PERMITTING:BLUEBIRDTOWINGEXISTINGELEVATIONSA-3.1EXISTING NORTHWEST ELEVATION4'3'2'1'0"4'22"x34" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"11"x17" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2EXISTING BOLLARDEXISTING TOP OF MONOPINE58.0' AGLEXISTING PANEL ANTENNA(TYP OF 6 - 2 PER SECTOR)EXISTING ANTENNA CENTERLINE45.0' AGLEXISTING GRADE0.0' AGLEXISTING CMU WALLWITH SHROUD COVEREXISTING MONOPINEEXISTING MW ANTENNA(TYP OF 3 - 1 PER SECTOR)EXISTING CHAINLINKED FENCE11/8/2021Planning Commission 2 – 17  O R A N G E C O U N T Y R E P O R T E R OR# ~SINCE 1921~ To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER. Thank you for using our newspaper. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are): Daily Journal Corporation Serving your legal advertising needs throughout California. Mailing Address : 600 W SANTA ANA BLVD, SANTA ANA, CA 92701 Telephone (714) 543-2027 / Fax (714) 542-6841 Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING CITY OF SANTA ANA/PLANNING & BUILDING 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA 2ND FLR SANTA ANA, CA 92702 GPN GOVT PUBLIC NOTICE 601 S. Santa Fe 10/29/2021 Publication Total $113.15 $113.15 ORANGE COUNTY REPORTER, SANTA ANA (714) 543-2027 BUSINESS JOURNAL, RIVERSIDE (951) 784-0111 DAILY COMMERCE, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300 LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, LOS ANGELES (213) 229-5300 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, SAN FRANCISCO (800) 640-4829 SAN JOSE POST-RECORD, SAN JOSE (408) 287-4866 THE DAILY RECORDER, SACRAMENTO (916) 444-2355 THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT, SAN DIEGO (619) 232-3486 THE INTER-CITY EXPRESS, OAKLAND (510) 272-4747 Notice Type: Ad Description COPY OF NOTICE 3524920 !A000005860093! The charge(s) for this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision- making process.We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions . Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony,and will take action on the item described below.Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or group. Project Location:601 S.Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M-2)land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant:Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk,LLC,on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets,LLC (Applicant)and The Maxine E.Findley Trust (Property Owner) Proposed Project:The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No.2021-17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot tall major wireless facility disguised as a mono-pine. Environmental Impact:The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines –Class 1/Existing Facilities.Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No.2021-98 will be filed for this project. Meeting Details:This matter will be heard on Monday,November 8,2021 at 5:30 p.m.in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza,Santa Ana,CA 92701.Members of the public may attend this meeting in-person or join via Zoom.For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting,please visit www.santa- ana.org/pb/meeting-particpation. Written Comments:If you are unable to participate in the meeting,you may send written comments by e-mail to PBAeComments@santa-ana.org (reference the Agenda Item #in the subject line)or mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary,City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza –M20,Santa Ana, CA 92701.Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting.Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s),including the full text of the discretionary item,may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at:https://santa- ana.primegov.com/public/portal. Who To Contact For Questions:Should you have any questions,please contact Ivan Orozco with the Planning and Building Agency at IOrozco@santa- ana.org or 714-667-2763. Note:If you challenge the decision on the above matter,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at,or prior to,the public hearing. Si tiene preguntas en español,favor de llamar a Narcedalia Perez (714)667- 2260. N u c n liên l c b ng ti ng Vi t, xin i n tho i cho Tony Lai s (714) 565-2627. 10/29/21 OR-3524920# 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –18 CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza ● P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.org/pba NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Santa Ana encourages the public to participate in the decision-making process. This notice is being sent to those who live or own property within 500 feet of the project site or who have expressed an interest in the proposed action. We encourage you to contact us prior to the Public Hearing if you have any questions. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, and will take action on the item described below. Decision on this matter will be final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the decision by any interested party or group. Project Location: 601 S. Santa Fe Street located in the Heavy Industrial (M-2) land use designation zoning district. Project Applicant: Nicole Comach with Virtual Site Walk, LLC, on behalf of SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (Applicant) and The Maxine E. Findley Trust (Property Owner) Proposed Project: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2021-17 to renew the entitlements of an existing 60-foot tall major wireless facility disguised as a mono-pine. Environmental Impact: The Planning Commission will consider a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines – Class 1/Existing Facilities. Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2021-98 will be filed for this project. Meeting Details: This matter will be heard on Monday, November 8, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Members of the public may attend this meeting in-person or join via Zoom. For the most up to date information on how to participate virtually in this meeting, please visit www.santa-ana.org/pb/meeting-particpation. Written Comments: If you are unable to participate in the meeting, you may send written comments by e-mail to PBAeComments@santa-ana.org (reference the Agenda Item # in the subject line) or mail to Sarah Bernal, Recording Secretary, City of Santa Ana, 20 Civic Center Plaza – M20, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Deadline to submit written comments is 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Comments received after the deadline may not be distributed to the Commission but will be made part of the record. Where To Get More Information: Additional details regarding the proposed action(s), including the full text of the discretionary item, may be found on the City website 72 hours prior to the public hearing at: https://santa-ana.primegov.com/public/portal. Who To Contact For Questions: Should you have any questions, please contact Ivan Orozco with the Planning and Building Agency at IOrozco@santa-ana.org or 714-667-2763. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –19 Note: If you challenge the decision on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council of the City of Santa Ana at, or prior to, the public hearing. Si tiene preguntas en español, favor de llamar a Angelina Becerra al (714) 667-2259. Nếu cần liên lạc bằng tiếng Việt, xin điện thoại cho Tony Lai số (714) 565-2627. Publish: OC Reporter Date: October 29, 2021 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –20 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 2 –21 Planning and Building Agency . Item # 3 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Planning Commission Staff Report November 8, 2021 Topic: EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: 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. 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 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 will identify specific development standards (setbacks, parking, open space etc.) for each parcel in the City. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –1 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 2 2 2 1 6 Upon adoption of the General Plan, staff will begin the process to complete a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code 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, there was consideration concern 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 communities. Through the 2021 EJ community outreach described below, and collaboration with community groups and interests parties; a number of Draft General Plan (August 2021) policies and programs were modified as identified in the Clarification of Draft General Plan Exhibit. This Exhibit also includes minor corrections to text and maps, and refinement to better align general plan land use density/intensity with existing zoning. 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –2 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 3 2 2 1 6 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 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 GPAC 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 8, 2020, additional outreach was conducted to further provide Santa Ana’s disadvantaged, 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 through Spring of 2021 (January through May). The campaign began with the gathering of a General Plan Outreach Roundtable, with representatives and local stakeholders providing ideas and feedback on tools and strategies that could be used to effectively engage as many community members as possible. The overall EJ Community Outreach Campaign included of 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; 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 categorized as “EJ communities.” Trilingual flyers encouraging participation in 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –3 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 4 2 2 1 6 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 reflect the voice of the collective Santa Ana community and to express its environmental justice principals. These Core Values: Health, Equity, Sustainability, Culture and Education, serve as the backbone of the goals, policies and implementation items found throughout the General Plan Elements. Community 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –4 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 5 2 2 1 6 Conservation, Noise, Safety and Housing) and optional elements are organized into three Sections: Services and Infrastructure (Section I) o Community Element o Mobility Element o Economic Prosperity Element o Public Services Element Natural Environment (Section II) 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 Senate Bill 1000, signed into law in 2016, requires local jurisdictions with disadvantaged communities within the City that are updating their General Plan to identify objectives and policies to reduce unique health risks in disadvantaged communities. Further, SB1000 requires cities to identify policies to promote civil engagement in the decision making process and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. The law provides two options for accomplishing the goals of SB1000: Adopt a separate Environmental Justice Element, or integrate the objectives of SB1000 into the various elements of the General Plan. Given that the environmental justice topic touches all aspects and all elements of the General Plan, it was determined early in the process to incorporate environmental justice components as policies woven into the fabric of the various Elements, elevating their importance and prominence in each Element. To achieve this prominence for the public and the reader, a unique identifying logo consisting of a colored tile with the letters “Eq” in the center and “EJ” in the upper right corner has been incorporated into the various policies and implementation measures that address environmental justice concerns in the City. In addition, the City also responded to community input received during the extensive outreach process by proposing additional optional elements that address special and unique community priorities and they 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –5 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 6 2 2 1 6 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 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –6 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 7 2 2 1 6 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 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 embraces the concept of environmental justice, which seeks to correct inequity by reducing pollution and increasing public investment in the communities most affected, while also ensuring their input is considered in decisions that affect them. There are 4 goals, 39 policies and 39 implementation items associated with this element. This Element is a State mandated Element Open Space Element 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –7 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 8 2 2 1 6 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 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. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –8 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 9 2 2 1 6 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 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –9 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 10 2 2 1 6 Focus Areas. Within these Focus Areas, the City anticipates the most potential for major development. 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 30implementation items associated with this Element. This is an optional element of the General Plan. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –10 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 11 2 2 1 6 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 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). 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –11 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 12 2 2 1 6 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 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. Air Quality impacts stem from the General Plan update being inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) as buildout under the plan would exceed the population estimates assumed for the AQMP and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Further, construction activities associated with buildout of the General Plan update would generate short-term emissions that exceed the AQMD’s significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Buildout would also generate long-term emissions and expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –12 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 13 2 2 1 6 contaminants. Finally, construction and operation emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed the AQMD’s local significance thresholds. 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 would result in a decrease in GHG emissions in 2045 but may not meet the long-term GHG reduction goal under Executive Order S-03-05. Due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects, and the longevity of the projects, construction noise could result in a temporary increase in noise levels above ambient conditions. Further, buildout of the General Plan update would expose residents to projects generating traffic noise. In addition, the buildout anticipated by the General Plan update would result in an increase in population and housing units that 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 would result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational resources and need to construct or expand of City public park and recreational facilities to address the deficiency issue. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, and even with the inclusion of feasible policies and implementation items proposed in the General Plan, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision makers balance the economic, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. 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. This action is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 7, 2021. The draft City Council resolution for overruling the ALUC’s determination has been attached at Exhibit 6. Conclusion The proposed comprehensive update to the General Plan will guide development with the City for the next 25 years. The goals, policies and implementation items within the 11 Elements have been developed through extensive input from the community. Further, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –13 EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update November 8, 2021 Page 14 2 2 1 6 extensive outreach on the General Plan update has assisted in shaping the final vision expressed within the Elements. Based on the analysis above, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (SCH No. 2020029087), adopt the environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06. 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 4. Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Link 5. Clarifications to the Draft General Plan 6. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Override Resolution Submitted By: Melanie McCann, Principal Planner Approved By: Sarah Bernal, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning and Building Agency 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –14 Resolution No. Page 1 of 2 Initials of att’y/date(e.g., M/DD/YY) RESOLUTION NO. . BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: {Enter text here} THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana this ___ day of ____, 20__ by the following vote: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –15 Resolution No. Page 2 of 2 AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: ATTEST: __________________________ Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:________________________ Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney CITY OF SANTA ANA: _______________________ Miguel A. Pulido Mayor CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _______________. Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Daisy Gomez Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –16 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 7 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –17 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –18 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 7 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –19 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –20 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –21 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –22 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –23 EXHIBIT A 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –24 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -1- October 2021 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 I. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –25 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -2- 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 II).) 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.App.4th 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.App.4th 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.App.4th 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 II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –26 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -3- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –27 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -4- 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 VII 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –28 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -5- 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –29 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -6- 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). 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –30 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -7- 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 (l-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; II, 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –31 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -8- October 2021 Mandatory Topics Optional Topics  Land Use Element  Circulation Element  Housing Element  Open Space Element  Conservation Element  Safety Element  Noise Element  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/GeneralPlanPolicyFrameworkMaster.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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –32 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -9- 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,1 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 1st 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 I-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) 1 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –33 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -10- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –34 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -11- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –35 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -12- 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 I-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 I-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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –36 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -13- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –37 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -14- 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 1st Street Corridor on both sides of 1st 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 I-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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –38 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -15- 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 I-5 and immediately west of SR-55. It is bounded by I-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 I-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 (I-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 I-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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –39 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -16- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –40 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -17- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –41 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -18- October 2021 5. Provide housing and employment opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City’s edge. 6. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –42 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -19- 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 NOA was 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 9, 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –43 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -20- 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 NOA was 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –44 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -21- 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 DE TERMINED 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –45 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -22- 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 SW PPP 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –46 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -23- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –47 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -24- 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. (l) 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –48 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -25- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –49 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -26- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –50 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -27- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –51 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -28- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –52 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -29- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –53 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -30- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –54 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -31- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –55 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -32- 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 impact known and unknown paleontological 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –56 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -33- 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 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. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –57 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -34- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –58 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -35- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –59 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -36- 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 Gabrieleño 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –60 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -37- 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 quality management plan. 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –61 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -38- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –62 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -39- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –63 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -40- 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –64 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -41- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –65 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -42- 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 (TAC). 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –66 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -43- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –67 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -44- 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 pollutants. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –68 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -45- 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –69 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -46- 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 Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –70 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -47- 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –71 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -48- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –72 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -49- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –73 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -50- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –74 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -51- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –75 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -52- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –76 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -53- 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 ½ 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –77 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -54- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –78 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -55- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –79 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -56- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –80 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -57- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –81 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -58- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –82 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -59- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –83 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -60- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –84 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -61- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –85 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -62- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –86 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -63- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –87 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -64- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –88 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -65- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –89 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -66- October 2021 VIII. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –90 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -67- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –91 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -68- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –92 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -69- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –93 October 2021 | 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 EXHIBIT C 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –94 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –95 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page i 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –96 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page ii PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –97 October 2021 Page 1 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –98 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 PlaceWorks 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 (I), 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –99 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 3 Mandatory Topics Optional Topics  Land Use Element  Circulation Element  Housing Element  Open Space Element  Conservation Element  Safety Element  Noise Element  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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –100 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 PlaceWorks 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –101 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 5 Tab le 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary PLANNING AREA BUILDOUT Housing Units Bldg. Sq. Ft.1 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 Aven ue 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –102 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 PlaceWorks 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). 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –103 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 7 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 5.2 AIR QUALITY 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 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. Prior to discretionary approval Project Applicant and Construction Contractor City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –104 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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 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. Prior to the discretionary approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –105 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 9 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –106 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to future discretionary project approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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 Prior to future discretionary project approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –107 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 11 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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. Concurrent with submittal of site development plans and prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Prior to issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –108 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Prior to any disturbance of a historical resource, as determined by the intensive-level historical evaluation of a property Property Owner or Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –109 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 13 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –110 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –111 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 15 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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 and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native 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. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –112 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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.. During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –113 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 17 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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. During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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: Every five years City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division in coordination with Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –114 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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, Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits Project Applicant/ Developer and Architect City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –115 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 19 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –116 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –117 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 21 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer and Acoustical Engineer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.15 RECREATION 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. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –118 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Safety Division CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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 Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –119 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 23 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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 Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –120 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –121 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 25 This page intentionally left blank. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –122 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 5 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –123 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –124 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 of 5 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –125 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 of 5 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –126 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –127 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –128 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –129 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -1-October 2021 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 I.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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –130 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -2- 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 II).) 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.App.4th 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.App.4th 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.App.4th 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 II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –131 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -3- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –132 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -4- 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 VII 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –133 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -5- 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –134 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -6- 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). 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –135 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -7- 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 (l-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; II, 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –136 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -8- October 2021 Mandatory Topics Optional Topics  Land Use Element  Circulation Element  Housing Element  Open Space Element  Conservation Element  Safety Element  Noise Element  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/GeneralPlanPolicyFrameworkMaster.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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –137 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -9- 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,1 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 1st 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 I-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) 1 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –138 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -10- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –139 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -11- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –140 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -12- 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 I-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 I-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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –141 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -13- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –142 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -14- 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 1st Street Corridor on both sides of 1st 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 I-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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –143 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -15- 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 I-5 and immediately west of SR-55. It is bounded by I-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 I-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 (I-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 I-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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –144 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -16- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –145 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -17- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –146 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -18- October 2021 5. Provide housing and employment opportunities at an urban level of intensity at the City’s edge. 6. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –147 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -19- 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 NOA was 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 9, 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –148 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -20- 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 NOA was 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –149 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -21- 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 DE TERMINED 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –150 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -22- 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 SW PPP 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –151 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -23- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –152 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -24- 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. (l) 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –153 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -25- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –154 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -26- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –155 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -27- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –156 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -28- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –157 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -29- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –158 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -30- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –159 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -31- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –160 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -32- 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 impact known and unknown paleontological 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –161 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -33- 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 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. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –162 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -34- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –163 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -35- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –164 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -36- 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 Gabrieleño 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –165 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -37- 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 quality management plan. 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –166 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -38- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –167 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -39- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –168 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -40- 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –169 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -41- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –170 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -42- 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 (TAC). 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –171 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -43- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –172 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -44- 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 pollutants. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –173 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -45- 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –174 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -46- 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 Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –175 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -47- 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –176 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -48- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –177 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -49- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –178 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -50- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –179 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -51- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –180 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -52- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –181 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -53- 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 ½ 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –182 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -54- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –183 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -55- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –184 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -56- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –185 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -57- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –186 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -58- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –187 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -59- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –188 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -60- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –189 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -61- 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.App.4th 957, 1001; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 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, 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –190 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -62- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –191 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -63- 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –192 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -64- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –193 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -65- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –194 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -66- October 2021 VIII. 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –195 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -67- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –196 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -68- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –197 Santa Ana General Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement Of Overriding Considerations -69- 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –198 October 2021 | 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 EXHIBIT D 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –199 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –200 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page i 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –201 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page ii PlaceWorks This page intentionally left blank. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –202 October 2021 Page 1 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –203 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 PlaceWorks 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 (I), 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: 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –204 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 3 Mandatory Topics Optional Topics  Land Use Element  Circulation Element  Housing Element  Open Space Element  Conservation Element  Safety Element  Noise Element  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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –205 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 PlaceWorks 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –206 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANATA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 5 Tab le 1-2 Buildout Statistical Summary PLANNING AREA BUILDOUT Housing Units Bldg. Sq. Ft.1 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 Aven ue 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –207 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 PlaceWorks 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). 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –208 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 7 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 5.2 AIR QUALITY 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 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. Prior to discretionary approval Project Applicant and Construction Contractor City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –209 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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 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. Prior to the discretionary approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –210 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 9 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –211 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to future discretionary project approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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 Prior to future discretionary project approval Property Owner/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –212 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 11 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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. Concurrent with submittal of site development plans and prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Prior to issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –213 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant. Prior to any disturbance of a historical resource, as determined by the intensive-level historical evaluation of a property Property Owner or Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –214 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 13 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –215 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –216 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 15 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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 and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native 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. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –217 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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.. During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –218 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 17 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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. During ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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: Every five years City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division in coordination with Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –219 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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, Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits Project Applicant/ Developer and Architect City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –220 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 19 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –221 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –222 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 21 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits Project Applicant/ Developer and Acoustical Engineer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.15 RECREATION 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. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 5.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 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 Prior to the issuance of grading permits Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –223 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor 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. Safety Division CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991). Prior to any ground disturbing activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 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 Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –224 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 23 Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation 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 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 Prior to construction activities Project Applicant/ Developer City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division City of Santa Ana Building Safety Division 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –225 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 PlaceWorks Table 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Mitigation Measure Timing Responsible Implementing Party Responsible Monitoring Party Document Location (Monitoring Record) Completion Date Responsible Monitoring Party Project Mitigation Monitor collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –226 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CITY OF SANTA ANA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2021 Page 25 This page intentionally left blank. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –227 EXHIBIT 3 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –228 EXHIBIT 4 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –229  1  Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  Draft Policy Framework, Maps, Tables, Implementation, and Text  November 1, 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 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, it has with a civic culture that  actively embraces the power of diversity. ; oOur 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: 20235  [updated to reflect Council Climate Action Resolution on 9/7/21]    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  75th percentile criteria (6059074005 and 6059074106) and one census tract was removed that  no longer met the 75th 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 75th percentile criteria (6059074005 and 6059074106) and one census tract was  removed that no longer met the 75th percentile criteria (6059074004).     11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –230 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  November 1, 2021   2  OPEN SPACE ELEMENT  ‐ POLICY OS‐1.2 PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM*   Provide and sSupport a comprehensive and integrated network of parks, recreation facilities,  trails, and open space that provide 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. Strive to Aattain a minimum of two acres of park land per 1,000 residents  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 larger 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.  Consider  allowingAllow developers a reduction in on‐site open space by giving credits for the provision of  park development or the provision of private park land for public use. Establish a process and  program to Iincentivize publicly accessible open space through the  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 land and open 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.    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.  11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –231 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  November 1, 2021   3    ‐ 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.    ‐ 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.”  11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –232 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  November 1, 2021   4  LAND USE ELEMENT  ‐ POLICY LU‐1.6 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT   Encourage residential mixed‐use development within the city’s District Centers, and 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.        11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –233 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  November 1, 2021   5  ‐ 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.    Figure LU‐1, Land Use Map, page LU 12  ‐ The map was revised to reflect the Change from DC‐5 to UN‐50 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 Santa Ana.    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) indicates 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.      11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –234 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  November 1, 2021   6  ‐ Mixed Use Density and Intensity DENSITY AND INTENSITY IN SANTA ANA  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 Center1), 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 Where zoning height standards conflict with where the allowable height in the  zoning standards differs from the typical maximum height shown on this page, zoning shall prevail.     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.    11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –235 Clarifications to the August 2021 Draft General Plan  November 1, 2021   7  Typical Maximum Height Footnote 2, page LU 23  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 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. 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 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 Where zoning height  standards where the allowable height in the zoning standards differs from the typical maximum  height shownconflict with the height standards on this page, zoning shall prevail. 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.  11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –236 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Table CN-1. CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES Census Tract Neighborhood(s) Low Income Percentile Score & Quartile Rank Variables in the Upper Quartile Composite Pollution Population Pollution Population 6059074003 Delhi No 86 99 56 AQ | DPM |TD | CS | GW | HZ | L LB 6059074300 Delhi, Madison Park Yes 89 93 73 AQ | CS | GW | HZ | L | SW LB | ED | HB 6059074200 Delhi, Madison Park, Memorial Park Yes 81 82 71 AQ | GW | L | HZ ED | LI |POV 6059074005 Sunwood Central, Rosewood Baker, South Coast Yes 76 79 65 AQ | L ED | LI 6059074108 Centennial Park Yes 82 89 66 AQ | L | CS |HZ LB |ED 6059074106 n/a Yes 76 89 56 AQ | CS | GW | HZ LB | ED 6059074109 Valley Adams Yes 77 81 65 AQ | L |HZ ED | HB 6059089004 Riverview West Yes 82 77 77 AQ | DPM | L ED| LI | POV | HB 6059089001 Riverview West Yes 80 70 79 AQ ED | LI | POV | HB 6059089105 Santa Anita Yes 81 65 83 AQ | L | TD ED | LI | POV | HB 6059074403 Cornerstone Village, Lyon St Yes 81 94 57 AQ | TD | CS | HZ ED| LI| POV | HB 6059074406 Lyon St, Saddleback View Yes 93 94 79 AQ | DPM | TD | CS | SW | L ED| LI| POV | HB | LB 6059074602 Madison Park, Pacific Park Yes 82 83 72 AQ| CS | HZ| L ED| LI| POV | HB 6059074502 Cedar Evergreen, Madison Park Yes 88 90 76 AQ | CS | GW | HZ L ED| LI | POV | HB 6059074405 French Court, French Park, Lacy, Logan, Pacific Park Yes 91 94 77 AQ | DPM | TD | CS | SW | L ED | LI | POV | HB 6059075002 Downtown, French Park, Heninger Park, Lacy, Pacific Park, Willard Yes 90 83 86 AQ | DPM | CS | HZ | SW | L LB | ED| LI | POV Rankings Quartile 1 = Good Quartile 2 = Moderate Quartile 3 = Poor Quartile 4= Challenged (Upper) Variable in the CeS 4.0 model: Pollution Exposure AQ = Air Quality (incl. Ozone, PM2.5, Toxic Releases) DPM - Diesel Particulate Matter TD = Traffic Density L = Lead Environmental Effects CS = Toxic Cleanup Sites GW: Groundwater Threats HZ = Hazardous Waste SW = Solid Waste Sites/Facilities Sensitive Population LB = Low Birth Weight Socioeconomic Factors LI = Linguistic Isolation POV = Poverty HB = Housing Burden ED = Educational Attainment 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. CN 16 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –237 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Rankings Quartile 1 = Good Quartile 2 = Moderate Quartile 3 = Poor Quartile 4= Challenged (Upper) Variable in the CeS 4.0 model: Pollution Exposure AQ = Air Quality (incl. Ozone, PM2.5, Toxic Releases) DPM - Diesel Particulate Matter TD = Traffic Density L = Lead Environmental Effects CS = Toxic Cleanup Sites GW: Groundwater Threats HZ = Hazardous Waste SW = Solid Waste Sites/Facilities Sensitive Population LB = Low Birth Weight Socioeconomic Factors LI = Linguistic Isolation POV = Poverty HB = Housing Burden ED = Educational Attainment 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. Table CN-1. CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES 6059074901 Flower Park, Heninger Park, Pico Lowell Yes 88 76 87 AQ | CS | HZ | L ED| LI | POV | UE 6059075201 Artesia Pillar Yes 84 81 78 AQ | HZ | L LB | ED | LI | POV | UE | HB 6059075202 Artesia Pilar Yes 82 84 72 AQ | CS | HZ | L ED | LI | UE | HB 6059074801 Artesia Pilar, Central City Yes 85 83 77 AQ | HZ | L ED | LI | POV 6059075004 French Court, Santa Ana Triangle Yes 83 79 76 AQ | DPM | TD | L ED | LI | POV | HB 6059074805 Bella Vista Yes 77 63 79 AQ ED | LI | POV | HB 6059075100 Flower Park, Washington Square, Willard, Floral Park, West Floral Park Yes 77 83 64 AQ | CS | HZ | L ED | LI 6059074802 Casa Bonita, Artesia Pilar Yes 76 88 58 AQ | CS | HZ | L ED | LI | POV CONSERVATIONCN 1711/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –238 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN |ÿ |ÿ %&'( %&'( |ÿ O R A N G EORANGE T U S T I NTUSTIN G A R D E N G R O V EGARDEN G R O V E C O S T A M E S ACOSTA M E S A F O U N T A I N V A L L E YFOUNTAIN V A L L E Y I R V I N EIRVINE 22 22 55 405 5 Main St17T h St Mc Fadden Ave Talb ert Ave Tustin St1St S t Warner Ave Dyer RdHarbor BlvdBristol StRed Hill AveCivi c Center Dr La Veta Ave Euclid St4Th St Ches tnut Ave Edinger AveFlower StHa za rd Ave GrandAveGa rden Gr ove Blvd Sa nta A n a Blv d RaittStBear StWest minster Av e Alton Ave Standard Ave5Th St MacArt hu r BlvdNewhope StFairview StSe gerstr om Ave Fairhaven Ave Sa nta C lara AveTrask Av e Alton Pk w y Sl ater Ave BroadwayTustin AveBarranca Pk w y 0 10.5 Miles Date Published: 11/1/2021 EJ Communities Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Environmental Justice Communities 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. Figure CN-3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES Environmental Justice Community: The City uses a mapping tool from CalEPA called CalEnviroScreen (CES) to identify the most vulnerable 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 75 and 100 percent—are considered disadvantaged or environmental justice communities.CONSERVATIONCN 1511/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –239 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Table OS-1. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Park Name Acres Park Name Acres Park Name Acres COMMUNITY PARKS 168.10 1. Carl Thornton Park 32.70 3. Jerome Park 19.27 5. Santiago Park 34.57 2. Centennial Regional Park 65.26 4. Memorial Park 16.30 ---- NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 145.86 1. Adams Park 5.68 10. El Salvador Park 8.91 19. Rosita Park 8.68 2. Angels Community Park 1.60 11. Fisher Park 2.58 20. Sandpointe Park 7.73 3. Birch Park 2.37 12. Heritage Park 6.44 21. Santa Anita Park 5.05 4. Bomo Koral Park 10.40 13. Lillie King Park 10.40 22. Windsor Park 10.81 5. Cabrillo Park 7.60 14. Mabury Park 5.46 ---- 6. Cabrillo Tennis Center 3.61 15. Madison Park 6.04 ---- 7. Cesar Chavez Campesino Park 6.48 16. Morrison Park 5.12 ---- 8. Delhi Park 9.94 17. Portola Park 9.07 ---- 9. Edna Park 3.56 18. Riverview Park 8.33 ---- SMALL PARKS 11.84 1. 17th Street Triangle 0.70 7. Garfield Fitness Park 0.10 13. Raitt and Myrtle 1.09 2. Chepa's Park 0.41 8. Maple Occidental Exercise Park 0.96 14. Saddleback View Park 0.92 3. Colonel William W. Eldridge Park 1.20 9. Mariposa Park 0.43 15. Sarah May Downie Herb Garden 0.13 4. Fairview Triangle 0.74 10. McFadden Triangle Park 0.77 16. Segerstrom Triangle Park 1.33 5. French Park 0.21 11. Memory Lane Park 0.56 17. Standard and McFadden Park 0.66 6. Friendship Park 0.10 12. Pacific Electric Park 1.41 18. Willard Intermediate Playlot 0.12 SPECIALTY PARKS 24.78 1. Civic Center Plaza 4.89 3. Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park 18.75 ---- 2. Plaza Calle Cuatro 0.20 4. Sasscer Park 0.94 ---- JOINT-USE SCHOOL/REC AREAS 31.78 1. Garfield Community Center 0.39 4. Madison Elementary School 0.03 7. Willard Intermediate School 4.85 2. Godinez Fundamental High School 18.58 5. Monte Vista Elementary School 2.40 ---- 3. James Monroe Elementary School 2.91 6. Roosevelt Community Center Park 2.62 ---- OTHER OPEN SPACE 282.77 1. River View Golf Course 81.78 3. Fairhaven Memorial Cemetery 66.83 5. St. John’s Lutheran Cemetery 4.23 2. Willowick Golf Course 102.11 4. Santa Ana Cemetery 27.82 ---- ClaSS I bIKeWaY/TRaIlS - 26.4 MIleS City Bikeways/Trails - 15.74 miles Santa Ana River Trail - 3.70 miles -- TOTAL PARKS/REC FACILITIES - 382.36 aCReS TOTAL OTHER OPEN SPACE - 282.77 aCReS TOTAL TRAILS - 19.44 MIleS 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. OS 08 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –240 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. Figure OS-1 OPEN SPACE RESOURCES |ÿ |ÿ %&'( %&'( |ÿ O R A N G EORANGE T U S T I NTUSTIN G A R D E N G R O V EGARDEN G R O V E C O S T A M E S ACOSTA M E S A F O U N T A I N V A L L E YFOUNTAIN V A L L E Y I R V I N EIRVINE 19 6 9 1 1 2 3 4 56 2 7 2 3 8 9 10 4 11 5 6 7 12 3 13 14 15 10 4 11 16 13 12 2 17 18 14 20 321 5 15 4 16 7 1 22 7 18 3 1 4 2 2 3 4 5 1 17 5 9 8 1 22 22 55 405 5 Main St17Th St Mc Fad den Av e Talb ert Ave Tustin St1S t St Warner Ave Dyer R dHarbor BlvdBristol StRed Hill AveCiv ic Center Dr La Veta Ave Euclid St4T h St Che stn u t Ave Ed inger AveFlower StHa za rd Ave GrandAveGa rd en Gr ove B l vd San ta An a B lvd Raitt StBear StWes tmin ster Av e Alton AveS tandard Ave5T h St MacA rt h ur B lv dNewhope StFairview StSe ge rst rom Ave Fair haven Av e Trask Av e Alton Pkwy Slater Ave BroadwayTustin AveBarranca Pkwy 0 10.5 Miles Date Published: 11/2/2021 Open Space Plan Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Open Space Type Class 1 Bikeway/Trail (Existing & Planned) Community Park Neighborhood Park Small Park Specialty Park Joint-use School Golf Course Cemetery OPEN SPACEOS 0711/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –241 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN 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. Figure OS-2 WALKING DISTANCE TO PARK FACILITIES |ÿ |ÿ %&'( %&'( |ÿ O R A N G EORANGE T U S T I NTUSTIN G A R D E N G R O V EGARDEN G R O V E C O S T A M E S ACOSTA M E S A F O U N TA I N V A L L E YFOUNTAIN V A L L E Y I R V I N EIRVINE 22 22 55 405 5 Main St17Th St McFadden Av e Tal b ert Ave Tustin St1S t St Warner Ave Dyer RdHarbor BlvdBristol StRed Hill AveCivi c Center Dr La Veta Ave Euclid St4Th St Che stn u t Ave Edinger AveFlower StHa za rd Av e GrandAveGa rde n Gr ov e Blvd Sa nta A n a Bl v d RaittStBear StWest m in ste r Ave Alton AveS tandard Ave5Th St MacA rt hur BlvdNewhope StFairview StSeger str om Ave Fair h aven Ave Santa C lara AveTrask Ave Alton Pk wy Sl ater Ave BroadwayTustin AveBarranca Pk w y 0 10.5 Miles Date Published: 11/2/2021 Park Service Areas Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 Park Type Community Park Neighborhood Park Small Park Walking Distance From Existing or Proposed Park 1/4 Mile 1/2 M ile Current or Future Residential Area more than 1/2 Mile Walking Distance from an Existing or Planned Park Facility Specialty Park Joint-use Park Class 1 Bikeway/Trail (Existing & Planned)OPEN SPACEOS 0911/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –242 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Table lU-3. DeNSITY aND INTeNSITY STaNDaRDS Designation Maximum Density/ Intensity1 Typical Max. Height2 Low Density Residential (LR-7)7 du/ac 2 stories2 Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR-11)11 du/ac 3 stories2 Medium Density Residential (MR-15)15 du/ac 3 stories2 Corridor Residential (CR-30)30 du/ac 3 stories2 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 stories2 PAO-1PAO-1 Professional and Administrative Office -Medium (PAO-1)1.0 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories2,3 PAO-1.5PAO-1.5 Professional and Administrative Office -Medium High (PAO-1.5)1.5 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories2 PAO-2PAO-2 Professional and Administrative Office -High (PAO-2)2.0 FAR 35 feet or 3 stories2,3 General Commercial (GC)0.5 35 feet2 GC-1GC-1 General Commercial -Medium (GC-1)1.0 FAR 35 feet2,3 GC-1.5GC-1.5 General Commercial-Medium High (GC-1.5)1.5 FAR 35 feet2,3 Industrial (IND)0.45 FAR4 35 feet2 FLEX-1.5FLEX-1.5 Industrial/Flex- Low (FLEX-1.5) 1.5 FAR and/or 30 du/ac 3 stories2 FLEX-3FLEX-3 Industrial/Flex- Medium (FLEX-3) 3.0 FAR 10 stories2 UN-20UN-20 Urban Neighborhood-Low (UN-20) 1.0 FAR and/or 20 du/ac 3 stories2 UN-30UN-30 Urban Neighborhood-Medium Low (UN-30) 1.5 FAR and/or 30 du/ac4 4 stories2,3 UN-40UN-40 Urban Neighborhood-Medium (UN-40) 1.5 FAR and/or 40 du/ac 5 stories2 UN-50UN-50 Urban Neighborhood-Medium High (UN-50) 1.5 FAR and/or 50 du/ac 6 stories2 One Broadway Plaza District Center (OBPDC) 2.9 FAR 37 stories2 DC-1DC-1 District Center-Low (DC-1) 1.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 6 stories2 DC-1.5DC-1.5 District Center-Medium Low (DC-1.5) 1.5 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 stories2 DC-2DC-2 District Center-Medium (DC-2) 2.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 stories2,3 DC-2.1DC-2.1 District Center-Medium (DC-2.1) 2.1 FAR 20 stories DC-2.54DC-2.54 District Center-Medium (DC-2.54) 2.54 FAR 5 stories DC-3DC-3 District Center-Medium High (DC-3) 3.0 FAR and/or 90 du/ac 10 stories2 DC-5DC-5 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. 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. 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 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. LU 17LAND USE11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –243 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN |ÿ |ÿ %&'( %&'( |ÿ O R A N G EORANGE T U S T I NTUSTIN G A R D E N G R O V EGARDEN G R O V E C O S T A M E S ACOSTA M E S A F O U N T A I N V A L L E YFOUNTAIN V A L L E Y I R V I N EIRVINE 22 22 55 405 5 Main St17Th St McFadden Ave Ta lbe r t Ave Tustin St1St St Warner Ave Dyer RdHarbor BlvdBristol StRed Hill AveCivi c Center Dr La Veta Ave Euclid St4Th St C he stnut Ave Ed inger AveFlower StH azard Av e GrandAveGarden Grove B lvd San ta Ana Blvd RaittStBear StWe stm i nster Ave Alton AveStan dard Ave5T h St M acArth ur BlvdNewhope StFairview StSeg erstro m Ave Fairhaven Ave Santa Clara AveTrask Ave Alton Pkwy Slater Ave BroadwayTustin AveBarranca Pkwy 0 10.5 Miles Date Published: 11/1/2021 Proposed General Plan Land Use Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 General Plan Land Use LR-7, Low Density Residential LMR-11, Low-Medium Density Residential MR-15, Medium Density Residential CR-30, Corridor Residential PAO, Professional and Administrative Office INS, Institutional GC, General Commercial OS, Open Space UN, Urban Neighborhood DC, District Center OBPDC, One Broadway Plaza District Center FLEX, Industrial/Flex IND, Industrial Figure Lu-1 LAND uSe MAP 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. LU 12 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –244 CITY OF SANTA ANA GENERAL PLAN |ÿ |ÿ %&'( %&'( |ÿ O R A N G EORANGE T U S T I NTUSTIN G A R D E N G R O V EGARDEN G R O V E C O S T A M E S ACOSTA M E S A F O U N T A I N V A L L E YFOUNTAIN V A L L E Y I R V I N EIRVINE 22 22 55 405 5 Main St17 Th S t McFadden Ave Ta lbert Ave Tustin St1St St Warner Ave Dyer Rd Harbor BlvdBristol StRed Hill AveLa Veta Ave Euclid StGrand Ave4Th St Che stnu t Ave Ed inger AveFlower StHa zard Ave Garde n Grove Blvd Tustin AveSa n ta Ana Blvd RaittStBear StWe stm i nste r Av e Alton AveStand ard Ave5Th St MacArth u r Bl vdNewhope StFairview StSeg erstro m Ave Fairhaven Ave San ta Cl ara AveTrask Ave Alton Pkwy Slater Ave BroadwayBarranca PkwyDC-1.5UN-30UN-30 UN-30 UN-30UN-30UN-20UN-20 UN-20UN-20GC-1 PAO-1PAO-1PAO-1UN-40UN-40UN-40 DC-3DC-3DC-3 DC-2.54 DC-2.1 DC-5 DC-5 DC-5 DC-5DC-5 DC-1DC-1DC-1 FLEX-1.5GC-1.5UN-50UN-50UN-50DC-2DC-2 DC-2DC-2UN-30 FLEX-1.5 FLEX-3 FLEX-3 FLEX-3UN-30UN-30 DC-5 UN-50UN-50 UN-30 UN-30 UN- 30 UN-40 UN-20 UN-20 UN-20 UN-20 GC-1 GC-1 PAO-1 PAO-1 PAO-1.5 PAO-1.5 PAO-1.5 DC-1 DC-1 FLEX-1.5 PAO-2 GC-1.5GC-1.5GC-1.5 GC-1.5 GC- 1.5 UN-50 UN-50 FLEX- 1.5 DC-1.5 DC-1.5 OBPDC UN- 40 0 10.5 Miles Date Published: 11/1/2021 Proposed General Plan Density and Intensity Categories Source: City of Santa Ana 2021 General Plan Land Use LR-7, Low Density Residential LMR-11, Low-Medium Density Residential MR-15, Medium Density Residential CR-30, Corridor Residential PAO, Professional and Administrative Office INS, Institutional GC, General Commercial OS, Open Space UN, Urban Neighborhood DC, District Center OBPDC, One Broadway Plaza District Center FLEX, Industrial/Flex IND, Industrial Figure Lu-4 DeNSiTY AND iNTeNSiTY MAP 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. LU 16 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –245 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 1 of 11 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –246 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 2 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –247 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 3 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 ____________, 2021. ________________________________ Vicente Sarmiento Mayor 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 _ 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –248 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 4 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –249 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 5 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –250 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 6 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –251 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 7 of 11 Contour, the FAR Part 77 Notification Surface and the runway safety zones associated with the airport.” 2. Both the Grand Ave/17th 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –252 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 8 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –253 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 9 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –254 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 10 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. h. 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 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –255 Resolution No. 2021-XXX Page 11 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. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 3 –256 Planning and Building Agency Item # 4 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Planning Commission Staff Report November 8, 2021 Topic: Westview Housing Residential Community Architectural Updates RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file. DISCUSSION On December 14, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve entitlements necessary to facilitate development of the Westview Housing residential community located at 2530 and 2534 Westminster Avenue. The community will consist of two three- and four-story residential buildings containing a total of 85 affordable residential units ranging from one- to four-bedrooms, with 58 for extremely-low income families, 26 for permanent supportive housing, and 1 as a manager unit. The entitlements were subsequently approved by the City Council on January 19, 2021. As part of the project’s entitlements, the developer is obligated to return to the Planning Commission to review updates to refine the design of the elevations facing Westminster Avenue. In September 2021, the developer began discussions with Planning Division staff regarding these refinements and subsequently produced a final proposed design that incorporates the following: 1. Adding plaster screeds on cement plaster massing to enhance architectural detailing. 2. Adding a decorative parapet element to white massing. 3. Revising the buildings’ massing to break up long parapet planes, further reducing visual impact on the surrounding streetscape. 4. Adding a balcony to unit on the 2nd floor to ensure all units have private open space. 5. Adding a wood/metal screen to corner balconies on 3rd and 4th floor to enhance architectural detailing. 6. Adding a pop-out element to double height corner massing to increase building articulation. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –1 Westview Housing Residential Community Architectural Updates November 8, 2021 Page 2 2 1 8 3 7. Painting the lower massing pop-outs a light gray to better distinguish these components from the rest of the buildings. 8. Adding a one-inch (1”) plaster reveal to separate the 1st and 2nd floors. In an effort to ensure these changes remain harmonious with the remaining buildings’ elevations, especially the side-street facing elevation on Huron Drive, the developer has proposed complementary revisions to other elevations throughout the project. No other changes to the approved entitlements are proposed. Full architectural elevations of the proposed changes are included as Exhibit 1 to this report. A full summary of all changes to the elevations is included as Exhibit 2 to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. EXHIBIT(S) 1. Updated architectural elevations 2. Summary of architectural changes Submitted By: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Principal Planner Approved By: Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –2 WESTVIEW SANTA ANA, CA 2021-10-25# 2105201 ELEVATION COMPARISON 0 10 20 40 WOOD/METAL SCREEN 1” PLASTER REVEAL 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: TIN LIZZIE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: TIN LIZZIE PLASTER SCREED AFTER - NORTH ELEVATION BEFORE - NORTH ELEVATION 29SITE PLAN REVIEW WESTVIEW BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH AND WEST PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0” PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEVINYL WINDOW BRONZE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING ARTIST MURAL TBD VINYL WINDOW BRONZE PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER (ARCH) COLOR: KNOCKOUT ORANGE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND GLASS TILE WALL COLOR: MATCH TAME TEAL GLASS TILE WALL COLOR: MATCH BUTTERFIELD ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS COLOR: CLOVE STEEL AWNING COLOR: CLOVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING VINYL WINDOW BRONZE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND GLASS TILE WALL COLOR: MATCH TAME TEAL ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WOOD/METAL SCREEN WOOD/METAL SCREEN 10’10’20’20’ 40’ 40’ WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –3 WESTVIEW SANTA ANA, CA 2021-10-25# 2105202 ELEVATION COMPARISON 0 10 20 40 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: TIN LIZZIE AFTER - WEST ELEVATION BEFORE - WEST ELEVATION 29SITE PLAN REVIEW WESTVIEW BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH AND WESTPARKING/LEVEL 1+0’-0”LEVEL 2+12’-0”LEVEL 3+22’-0”LEVEL 4+32’-0”TOP OF ROOF+42’-0” PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEVINYL WINDOWBRONZE COMPOSITE WOODSIDINGARTIST MURALTBD VINYL WINDOWBRONZEPAINTED STEEL RAILINGSCOLOR: CLOVE20/30 CEMENT PLASTERCOLOR: WHITE SAND 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER (ARCH)COLOR: KNOCKOUT ORANGE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTERCOLOR: WHITE SANDGLASS TILE WALLCOLOR: MATCH TAME TEALGLASS TILE WALLCOLOR: MATCH BUTTERFIELD ANODIZED ALUMINUMSTOREFRONTPAINTED STEEL RAILINGSCOLOR: CLOVE STEEL AWNINGCOLOR: CLOVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING VINYL WINDOW BRONZE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND GLASS TILE WALL COLOR: MATCH TAME TEAL ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WOOD/METALSCREEN WOOD/METAL SCREEN 10’10’20’20’ 40’ 40’ WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION PLASTER SCREED 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –4 WESTVIEW SANTA ANA, CA 2021-10-25# 2105203 ELEVATION COMPARISON 0 10 20 40 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: BIG CHILL AFTER - SOUTH ELEVATION BEFORE - SOUTH ELEVATION 30 SITE PLAN REVIEW WESTVIEW BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH AND EAST PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0” PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOMPOSITE WOOD SIDING COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING ARTIST MURAL TBD COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING VINYL WINDOW BRONZE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND HORIZ. RIBBED PANELS COLOR: TAME TEAL ARTIST MURAL TBD BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND HORIZ. RIBBED PANELS COLOR: ECO GREEN WOOD/METAL SCREEN GREEN SCREEN PANELS BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS COLOR: CLOVE HORIZ. RIBBED PANELS COLOR: ECO GREEN 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND VINYL WINDOW BRONZE GLASS TILE WALL COLOR: MATCH BUTTERFIELD PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND 10’10’20’20’ 40’ 40’ EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION SEMI-SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: CLOVE SEMI-SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KILKENNY 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: TIN LIZZIE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KILKENNY 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: RIVULET PLASTER SCREED 1” PLASTER REVEAL 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –5 WESTVIEW SANTA ANA, CA 2021-10-25# 2105204 ELEVATION COMPARISON 0 10 20 40 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: TIN LIZZIE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KNOCKOUT ORANGE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KILKENNY SEMI-SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KILKENNY AFTER - EAST ELEVATION BEFORE - EAST ELEVATION 30 SITE PLAN REVIEW WESTVIEW BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH AND EASTPARKING/LEVEL 1+0’-0”LEVEL 2+12’-0”LEVEL 3+22’-0”LEVEL 4+32’-0”TOP OF ROOF+42’-0” PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOMPOSITE WOODSIDING COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING ARTIST MURAL TBD COMPOSITE WOODSIDINGVINYL WINDOWBRONZE20/30 CEMENT PLASTERCOLOR: WHITE SAND HORIZ. RIBBED PANELSCOLOR: TAME TEAL ARTIST MURALTBDBOARD AND BATTEN SIDINGCOLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTERCOLOR: WHITE SAND HORIZ. RIBBED PANELSCOLOR: ECO GREENWOOD/METALSCREEN GREEN SCREEN PANELS BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS COLOR: CLOVE HORIZ. RIBBED PANELS COLOR: ECO GREEN 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND VINYL WINDOW BRONZE GLASS TILE WALL COLOR: MATCH BUTTERFIELD PAINTED STEEL RAILINGSCOLOR: CLOVE20/30 CEMENT PLASTERCOLOR: WHITE SAND 10’10’20’20’ 40’ 40’ EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION PLASTER SCREED 1” PLASTER REVEAL METAL FENCE AND GATE 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –6 WESTVIEW SANTA ANA, CA 2021-10-25# 2105205 ELEVATION COMPARISON 0 10 20 40AFTER - WEST INTERNAL ELEVATION BEFORE - WEST INTERNAL ELEVATION 31SITE PLAN REVIEW WESTVIEW BUILDING ELEVATION - DRIVEWAY ELEVATIONS PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 4 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0” PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 3 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOMPOSITE WOOD SIDING HORIZ. RIBBED PANELS COLOR: ECO GREEN ARTIST MURAL TBDVINYL WINDOW BRONZE PAINTED STEEL RAILINGS COLOR: CLOVE SOLAR PANEL VINYL WINDOW20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND VINYL WINDOW ALUMINUM BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND COMPOSITE WOOD PLANK CANOPY & SCREEN ALUMINUM VINYL WINDOW BRONZE VINYL WINDOW BRONZE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING METAL GARAGE DOORS GREEN SCREEN PANELS 10’10’20’20’ 40’ 40’ WEST INTERNAL ELEVATION EAST INTERNAL ELEVATION 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KILKENNY SEMI-SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: CLOVE SEMI-SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: KILKENNY PLASTER SCREED METAL FENCE AND GATE 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –7 WESTVIEW SANTA ANA, CA 2021-10-25# 2105206 ELEVATION COMPARISON 0 10 20 40AFTER - EAST INTERNAL ELEVATION BEFORE - EAST INTERNAL ELEVATION 31SITE PLAN REVIEW WESTVIEW BUILDING ELEVATION - DRIVEWAY ELEVATIONSPARKING/LEVEL 1+0’-0”LEVEL 2+12’-0”LEVEL 3+22’-0”LEVEL 4+32’-0”TOP OF ROOF+42’-0” PARKING/LEVEL 1 +0’-0” LEVEL 2 +12’-0” LEVEL 3 +22’-0” LEVEL 3 +32’-0” TOP OF ROOF +42’-0”PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINECOMPOSITE WOODSIDING HORIZ. RIBBED PANELSCOLOR: ECO GREENARTIST MURALTBDVINYL WINDOWBRONZE PAINTED STEEL RAILINGSCOLOR: CLOVE SOLAR PANEL VINYL WINDOW20/30 CEMENT PLASTERCOLOR: WHITE SAND VINYL WINDOWALUMINUMBOARD AND BATTEN SIDINGCOLOR: CLOVE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDINGCOLOR: CLOVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING COLOR: CLOVE 20/30 CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: WHITE SAND COMPOSITE WOOD PLANK CANOPY & SCREEN ALUMINUMVINYL WINDOWBRONZE VINYL WINDOW BRONZE COMPOSITE WOODSIDING METAL GARAGE DOORS GREEN SCREENPANELS 10’10’20’20’ 40’ 40’ WEST INTERNAL ELEVATION EAST INTERNAL ELEVATION SEMI-SMOOTH CEMENT PLASTER COLOR: CLOVE PLASTER SCREED 1” PLASTER REVEAL 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –8 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 2 - Summary of Architectural Changes North Elevation: • Added plaster screeds on cement plaster massing. • Added decorative parapet element to white massing. • Revised massing to break up long parapet planes. • Added a balcony to unit on 2nd floor. • Added wood/metal screen to corner balconies on 3rd and 4th floor. • Added pop-out element to double height corner massing. • Painted lower massing pop-outs a light gray. • Added a 1” plaster reveal to separate 1st and 2nd floor. West Elevation: • Added plaster screeds on cement plaster massing. • Added decorative parapet element to white massing. • Added pop-out element to double height corner massing. • Painted lower massing pop-outs a light gray. • Removed wood/metal screen covering balconies. • Added a 1” plaster reveal to separate 1st and 2nd floor. South Elevation: • Added plaster screeds on cement plaster massing. • Added decorative parapet element to white massing. • Replaced board and batten siding with semi-smooth 20/30 cement plaster, (CDP to price out 30/30 plaster) • Removed decorative tile and ribbed panels and replaced with painted cement plaster. • Painted lower massing pop-outs a light gray. • Added a 1” plaster reveal to separate 1st and 2nd floor. East Elevation: • Added plaster screeds on cement plaster massing. • Added decorative parapet element to white massing. • Removed decorative tile and ribbed panels and replaced with painted cement plaster. • Painted lower massing pop-outs a light gray. • Replaced board and batten siding with semi-smooth 20/30 cement plaster, (CDP to price out 30/30 plaster). • Replaced green screen panels with a solid wall painted with a mural. • Replaced wood fence and gate with metal fence and gate. • Removed wood/metal screen covering balconies. West Internal Elevation: • Added plaster screeds on cement plaster massing. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –9 Page 2 of 2 • Added decorative parapet element to white massing. • Removed ribbed panels in recesses and replaced with painted cement plaster. • Replaced board and batten siding with semi-smooth 20/30 cement plaster, (CDP to price out 30/30 plaster). • Replaced wood fence and gate with metal fence and gate. • Replaced green screen panels with a solid wall. • Removed wood/metal screen covering balconies. East Internal Elevation: • Added plaster screeds on cement plaster massing. • Added decorative parapet element to white massing. • Replaced board and batten siding with semi-smooth 20/30 cement plaster, (CDP to price out 30/30 plaster). • Added a 1” plaster reveal to separate 1st and 2nd floor. 11/8/2021 Planning Commission 4 –10