Agenda packet — Santa Ana City Council, February 15, 2022 (part 6 of 9)

at a rate of one and one-half (1½) habitable square feet per each required habitable square foot of inclusionary units.
(3) Rehabilitated units within a designated target area. Upon application, the developer may satisfy the inclusionary unit requirements for the project, in whole or in part by substantially rehabilitating existing housing units elsewhere within the borders of the city at a rate of one habitable square foot per each required habitable square foot of affordable inclusionary units.
(c) In-lieu fee.
(1) Five (5) or more units. For a residential project comprised of five (5) or more residential lots or residential units, the developer may elect to satisfy the inclusionary unit requirements for the project, in whole or in part, by payment of a fee in-lieu of constructing some or all of the required units. The total amount of the fee allowed by this section shall be calculated using the In-Lieu Fee Schedule in section 41-1904(c)(1)(i) multiplied by the sum total of the number of habitable square feet within the entire project, as measured from the exterior walls of the residential units. This calculation does not include exterior hallways, common areas, landscape, open space or exterior stairways. (i) In-Lieu Fee Schedule
Units/Lots Fee Per Square Foot of
Habitable Area
5 – 9 $6.00
10 – 14 $9.00
15 – 19 $12.00
20 or more $15.00
(ii) Local Skilled and Trained Workforce Incentive. The use of a local skilled and trained workforce shall be phased in over time and shall only apply to a development project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units opting to exercise the inlieu fee payment optionThe in-lieu fee. The implementation of this subsection shall be phased as follows:
(A) Between November 16, 2021 and December 31, 2025, a
project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units exercising the option to pay the $15 per square foot in-lieu fee amount shall not be required to utilize a local skilled and trained workforce for completing the construction of the project. for fifteen (15) or more units However, Tthis fee shall be reduced if the developer voluntarily provides the City with an executed enforceable commitment to use a “Skilled and Trained Workforce” as defined in Public Contract Code section 2601 to complete the construction of the project as specified in the table below as follows:

Use of Skilled and Trained
Workforce
Fee Per Square Foot of
Habitable Area
City Council 25 – 10 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 9 of 18 ends

30% of workforce utilizing
2 or more construction
trades
$10.00
60% of workforce utilizing
3 or more construction
trades
$5.00
A minimum of 2035% of the above work-hours shall be
performed in accordance with local hire policies
approved by the City Council.
(B) Effective January 1, 2026 and thereafter, a project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units exercising the option to pay the $15 per square foot inlieu fee amount shall be required to provide the City with an executed enforceable commitment that 30 percent of the workforce utilized to complete the construction of the project be derived from a “Skilled and Trained Workforce” as defined in Public Contract Code section 2601; and that a minimum of 35 percent of the required skilled and trained workforce total work-hours shall be performed in accordance with local hire policies approved by the City Council. This fee shall be reduced when the developer commits to a higher utilization level as specified in the table below:

Use of Skilled and Trained
Workforce
Fee Per Square Foot of
Habitable Area
60% of workforce $10.00
90% of workforce $5.00
A minimum of 35% of the above work-hours shall be
performed in accordance with local hire policies
approved by the City Council.
(2) Timing of payment. The total fee amount for the entirety of a project is calculated, determined, and set at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the project. All in-lieu fees allowed by this section shall be paid no later than prior to issuance of the first occupancy approval for any construction which adds net residential units. If the city approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required fee shall be paid within each phase of the residential project. The in-lieu fees collected by the city are city funds over which the city has complete and absolute discretion. (3) Inclusionary housing fund. Fees collected in compliance with this section shall be deposited in the inclusionary housing fund.

City Council 25 – 11 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 10 of 18 ends

(4) The provisions of Section 41-1904(c)(1) may only be modified by the affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the City Council.

Sec. 41-1904.1. Inclusionary housing development incentives for production of units.
(a) In order to make the production of new inclusionary units on-site or off-site or offsite rehabilitated units, certain incentives, standards and concessions shall be allowed and prescribed as set forth herein below. Such concessions shall not be available to those developers that choose to pay an in lieu fee rather than build the units. The developer may opt to take advantage of up to two (2) concessions among the following possible concessions:
(1) Parking concession. One on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit; two (2) on-site parking spaces for each two (2) to three (3) bedroom unit; two and one-half (2½) parking spaces for each four (4) or more bedroom unit. (2) Concession on one of the following Zoning Code site development standards:
(i) Setback reduction of up to twenty-five (25) percent reduction on subject property;
(ii) Height increase of up to twenty (20) additional feet. (b) A developer of a for sale residential project proposing to provide on-site moderate income units and a surrounding community benefit may opt to take advantage of up to three (3) of the above concessions. The surrounding community benefit will include but not be limited to park improvements, urban community gardens, developer-funded down payment assistance, or subsidy of services, activities or programs. (1) Local Density Bonus. For each 1 percent increase above 5 percent in the percentage of for-sale units affordable to moderate income households, the base density shall be increased by 1.5 percent up to a maximum of 35 percent.

City Council 25 – 12 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 11 of 18 ends

2) Inclusionary housing agreement. The developer shall execute and cause to be recorded an inclusionary housing agreement. The inclusionary housing agreement shall be a legally binding agreement between the developer and the city, executed by the city manager, or his or her designee, and in a form and substance satisfactory to the executive director and the city attorney, and containing those provisions necessary to ensure that the requirements of this article are satisfied, whether through the provision of inclusionary units or through an approved alternative method. (b) Discretionary approvals. No discretionary approval shall be issued for a residential project subject to this article until the developer has submitted an inclusionary housing plan.
(c) Issuance of building permit. No building permit shall be issued for a residential project subject to this article unless the executive director has approved the inclusionary housing plan, and any required inclusionary housing agreement has been recorded. (d) Issuance of certificate of occupancy. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for a residential project subject to this article unless the approved inclusionary housing plan has been fully implemented.

City Council 25 – 13 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 12 of 18 ends

(1) The sum-total area (in habitable square feet) of all the newly constructed off-site inclusionary units shall be the same number of habitable square feet of inclusionary area as required by this ordinance. For the purpose of the calculation of the number of square feet of required inclusionary housing, the total gross habitable square feet of the housing units of the original market rate project shall be used, as measured from exterior walls to exterior walls of the market units provided as the base for calculation. The common areas, exterior hallways, stairways, patios, and balconies shall not be calculated in determining the number of required square feet of inclusionary housing production. All new or rehabilitated units must meet all current zoning and general plan standards.
(2) While the total number of square feet of inclusionary housing requirement is calculated based on the requirements of this ordinance, the number of units, bedrooms and other amenities on the proposed off-site inclusionary housing location shall be approved by the review authority commensurate with the size and type of units most in demand at the time of submittal of the application.
(3) Any off-site affordable inclusionary housing project shall be substantially comparable to the market rate units included in the residential project in terms of quality of design, materials and finishes.
(4) If tenants are displaced due to rehabilitation of housing to meet the inclusionary unit requirement, the developer shall be responsible for relocation costs as required by state law.
(5) No city, housing authority, or public funds, subsidies, or participation of any kind shall be expended on the production or building of any inclusionary housing projects associated with meeting the inclusionary unit requirement. (d) Timing of construction. All inclusionary units in a residential project or proposed off-site new inclusionary units or rehabilitated units shall be constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the market rate units. If the city approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required inclusionary units shall be provided within each phase of the residential project.
(e) Units for sale.
(1) Time limit for inclusionary restrictions. A unit for sale shall be restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years.
(2) Certification of purchasers. The developer and all subsequent owners of an inclusionary unit offered for sale shall certify, on a form provided by the city, the income of the purchaser and that such owners will live in such inclusionary unit as their primary residence.

City Council 25 – 14 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 13 of 18 ends

(3) Resale price control. In order to maintain the availability of inclusionary units required by this article, the resale price of an owner occupied inclusionary unit shall be limited to the lesser of the fair market value of the unit as established by a licensed real estate agent based upon three (3) comparable properties or the restricted resale price.

For these purposes, the restricted resale price shall be the applicable affordable housing cost.
(4) Inheritance of inclusionary units. Upon the death of an owner of an owneroccupied inclusionary unit, title in the property may transfer to the surviving joint tenant or heir (in the case of the death of a sole owner or all owners of the household). (5) Forfeiture. If an inclusionary unit for sale is sold for an amount in excess of the resale price controls required by this section, the buyer and the seller shall be jointly and severally liable to the city for the amount in excess of the affordable housing cost at the time of such sale of the inclusionary unit. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the inclusionary housing fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing, city may allow the buyer and seller to cure any violation of the resale price controls within one hundred eighty (180) days.
(f) Rental units.
(1) Time limit for inclusionary restrictions. A rental inclusionary unit shall remain restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for fifty-five (55) years.
(2) Certification of renters. The owner of any rental inclusionary unit shall certify, on a form provided by the city, the income of all members of the household above the age of eighteen (18) at the time of the initial rental and annually thereafter. (3) Forfeiture. Any lessor who leases an inclusionary unit in violation of this article shall be required to forfeit to the city all money so obtained. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the inclusionary housing fund.
(g) Execution and recording of documents. The executive director may require the execution and recording of whatever documents are required to ensure enforcement of this section; including, but not limited to, promissory notes, deeds of trust, resale restrictions, rights of first refusal, options to purchase, and/or other documents, which shall be recorded against all inclusionary units.
(h) General prohibitions.
(1) No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit at a price or rent in excess of the maximum amount allowed by any restriction placed on the unit in accordance with this article.

City Council 25 – 15 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 14 of 18 ends

(2) No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit to a person or persons that do not meet the income restrictions placed on the unit in accordance with this article. (3) No person shall provide false or materially incomplete information to the city or to a seller or lessor of an inclusionary unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which that person is not eligible.
(i) Principal residency requirement.

1. The owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall reside in the unit for not less than ten (10) out of every twelve (12) months.

2. No owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall lease or sublease, as applicable, an inclusionary unit without the prior permission of the executive director.

Sec. 41-1907. Reserved.

Sec. 41-1908. Enforcement.
(a) Violation. Any violation of this article constitutes a misdemeanor. (b) Forfeiture of funds. Any individual who sells an inclusionary unit in violation of this article shall be required to forfeit any money in excess of the affordable housing cost at such time. Any individual who rents an inclusionary unit in violation of this article shall be required to forfeit all money so obtained. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the inclusionary housing fund.
(c) Legal actions. The city may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this article, including actions:
(1) To disapprove, revoke, or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval; and (2) For injunctive relief or damages.
(d) Recovery of costs. In any action to enforce this article, or an inclusionary housing agreement recorded hereunder, the city shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Page 15 of 18 ends

funds policies and procedures. A priority will be on the creation of affordable housing opportunities or units from the existing market rate housing stock rather than construction of new affordable housing units and on the creation of new affordable housing opportunities for large families currently living in the City. This includes, but is not limited to, the purchase and rehabilitation of units for sale. Monies may also be used to pay for one-time programs for code enforcement, quality of life and general health and safety activities. Monies may also be used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this article. (2) The fund shall be administered by the executive director, or his or her designee, who may develop procedures in the city's affordable housing funds policies and procedures to implement the purposes of the inclusionary housing fund consistent with the requirements of this article and any adopted budget of the city. (3) Monies deposited in accordance with this section shall be used in accordance with the affordable housing funds policies and procedures, housing element, consolidated plan, or subsequent plan adopted by the city council to construct, rehabilitate, or subsidize affordable housing or to recapture affordable housing at risk of market conversion, or to assist other government entities, private organizations, or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, pre-home ownership coinvestment, pre-development loan funds, participation leases, or other public-private partnership arrangements. The inclusionary housing fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.
(4) A developer receiving funding from the inclusionary housing fund shall implement a local preference in their resident selection criteria and marketing policies meeting guidelines established by the executive director. (5) A developer receiving funding from the inclusionary housing fund, as well as its contractors and subcontractors at every tier performing work for the new housing units is encouraged and should to negotiate in good faith to provide the City with an enforceable commitment that a minimum 30% of the labor utilizing 2 or more construction trades be performed by a “Skilled and Trained Workforce” as defined in Public Contract Code section 2601 to complete the construction of the project. and If so provided, shall also include a minimum of 35% of such labor all work-hours for the project shall be performed in accordance with local hire policies approved by the City Council.

Sec. 41-1910. Administrative.
(a) In-lieu fee calculation. The amount per square foot of the inclusionary housing inlieu fee shall be subject to city council review and consideration as needed.

City Council 25 – 17 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 16 of 18 ends

(b) Administration fees. The council may by resolution establish reasonable fees and deposits for the administration of this article including an annual monitoring fee and an inclusionary housing plan submittal fee.
(c) Monitoring/audits. At the time of initial occupancy, and annually thereafter, the city will monitor the project to ensure that the income verifications are correct and in compliance with the inclusionary housing administrative procedures. For ownership units, the city shall monitor to verify that owner-occupancy requirements are maintained.

Developer/property owners are required to cooperate with the city in promptly providing all information requested by the city in monitoring compliance with program requirements.

The city will conduct periodic random quality control audits of inclusionary units to ensure compliance with rules and requirements. Such audits may include verification of continued occupancy in inclusionary units by eligible tenants, compliance with the inclusionary housing plan and agreement, and physical inspections of the residential project.
(e) Administrative procedures. The city manager is hereby authorized and directed to promulgate administrative procedures for the implementation of this article.

Secs. 41-1911—41-1999. Reserved.

Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.

City Council 25 – 18 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 17 of 18 ends

Section 7. The Clerk of the Council shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.

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 _______________________________________ City Council 25 – 19 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 18 of 18 ends

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS-____________ to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _______________, and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.

Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council 25 – 20 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 1 of 17 ends

ORDINANCE NO. NS-________
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2021-03 AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA ANA REPEALING AND REENACTING IN ITS
ENTIRETY ARTICLE XVIII.I. OF CHAPTER 41 OF THE

SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ORDINANCE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows:

A. On November 28, 2011, the Santa Ana City Council adopted Ordinance No.

NS-2825, known as the Housing Opportunity Ordinance and appearing as “Article XVIII.I. – Housing Opportunity Ordinance” (“Housing Opportunity Ordinance”) of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. The Housing Opportunity Ordinance was adopted to implement the City’s Housing Element Goal of providing affordable housing within the City.

B. On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. NS-2881, which amended the Housing Opportunity Ordinance in various respects, including applicability, options to satisfy inclusionary requirements, and calculation of the in-lieu housing fee. These amendments were intended to make the inclusionary housing requirements more predictable for housing developers and to incentivize the production of more affordable housing.

C. In response to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development and construction of housing in the City, including the reduction of housing starts, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. NS-2994 on September 1, 2020. Ordinance No. NS2994 further amended the Housing Opportunity Ordinance to lower the in-lieu housing fee for all projects from $15 to $5 per square foot, adjust the trigger of the ordinance, and expand the eligible uses of in-lieu fees collected by the City.

D. On March 2, 2021, at the direction of the City Council, an Ad Hoc Committee for Housing was formed. The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the Housing Opportunity Ordinance and recommended certain changes. The Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations were presented and discussed at the City Council Meeting on July 6, 2021.

E. On July 26, 2021, the City Council conducted a work-study session to further evaluate the Committee’s recommendations and to receive input from key stakeholders and members of the public. The City Council provided direction to staff to prepare amendments to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance concerning the applicability City Council 25 – 21 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 2 of 17 ends

and triggers for the ordinance, adjustments to the in-lieu fee calculation, set-aside units, and options for satisfaction of inclusionary requirements.

F. On September 7, 2021, the City Council further considered this matter and provided additional direction to staff regarding proposed amendments to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance.

G. At the City Council meeting of October 5, 2021, staff received direction to initiate the adoption hearing in order for the City Council to consider the changes recommended by the Housing Ad Hoc Committee.

H. On October 25, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning the proposed Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.

I. The Request for City Council Action for this Ordinance dated November 16 and December 7, 2021 and duly signed by the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency shall, by this reference, be incorporated herein, and together with this ordinance, any amendments or supplements, and oral testimony, constitute the necessary findings for this ordinance.

Section 2. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, as there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment and it is not a "project", as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, the proposed Ordinance falls within the "common sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." Adoption of this Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment because the proposed changes will only modernize, update, and clarify existing affordable and inclusionary housing requirements responding to the current economic and housing trends in the City and will not cause a physical change in the environment.

Section 3. Article XVIII.I of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.

Section 4. Article XVIII.I. of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby reenacted and amended to read in its entirety as follows:

ARTICLE XVIII.I. - 2021 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND CREATION

ORDINANCE
City Council 25 – 22 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 3 of 17 ends

Sec. 41-1900. Purpose.

This article establishes standards and procedures to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. The purpose of this article is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing by requiring the inclusion of affordable housing units within new developments when the number of units exceed the densities permitted under the general plan, zoning classification, or the conversion of rental units to condominium ownership.

Sec. 41-1901. Definitions.

As used in this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

Adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit means a household of one person in the case of a studio unit, two (2) persons in the case of a one-bedroom unit, three (3) persons in the case of a two-bedroom unit, four (4) persons in the case of a threebedroom unit, and five (5) persons in the case of a four-bedroom unit.

Administrative procedures means those regulations promulgated by the executive director pursuant to section 41-1910 of this article.

Affordable housing cost means the total housing costs paid by a qualifying household, which shall not exceed the fraction of gross income specified, as follows:

Extremely low-income households. Thirty (30) percent of the income of a household earning thirty (30) percent of the Orange County median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit.

Very low-income households. Thirty (30) percent of the income of a household earning fifty (50) percent of the Orange County median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit.

Low-income households. Thirty (30) percent of the income of a household earning eighty (80) percent of the Orange County median income for family size appropriate for the unit.

Moderate-income households. Thirty (30) percent of the income of a household earning one hundred twenty (120) percent of the Orange County median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit.

The qualifying limits for extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income and moderate-income households are established and amended annually pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The limits are published by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Base Density means the maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre of land within each land use category designated in the General Plan.

Developer means any association, corporation, firm, joint venture, partnership, person, or any entity or combination of entities, which seeks city approval for all or part of a residential project.

City Council 25 – 23 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 4 of 17 ends

Development agreement means an agreement approved by the city council between a property owner and the city pursuant to Government Code section 65864, et seq.

Executive director means the executive director of community development for the city.

General plan means the adopted general plan for the City of Santa Ana.

Inclusionary housing agreement means a legally binding agreement between the developer and the city, in a form and substance satisfactory to the executive director and the city attorney, and containing those provisions necessary to ensure that the requirements of this article are satisfied, whether through the provision of inclusionary units or through an approved alternative method.

Inclusionary housing fund means the fund created by the city in which all fees collected in compliance with this article shall be deposited.

Inclusionary housing plan means the plan submitted by the developer, in a form specified by the executive director, detailing how the provisions of this article will be implemented for the proposed residential project.

Inclusionary unit means a dwelling unit that will be offered for sale or rent to extremely low, very low, low, or moderate-income households, at an affordable housing cost, in compliance with this article.

Low-income units, very low-income units, and extremely low-income units means inclusionary units restricted to occupancy by low, very low, and extremely low-income households, respectively, at an affordable housing cost.

Market rate units means dwelling units in a residential project that are not inclusionary units.

Moderate-income units means inclusionary units restricted to occupancy by moderate-income households at an affordable housing cost.

Regulatory agreement means an agreement entered into between the City of Santa Ana or the Santa Ana Community Development Agency and a developer by which the developer covenants to keep certain housing units at an affordable housing cost for a specified period of time.

Rehabilitated units/rehabilitation means the improvement of a unit in substandard condition to a decent, safe and sanitary level. Units are in substandard condition when, while they may be structurally sound, they do not provide safe and adequate shelter, and in their present condition endanger the health, safety or well-being of the occupants.

Residential project/project means any of the following:

A subdivision resulting in the creation of five (5) or more residential lots or residential condominium units; or
The new construction of a project consisting of five (5) or more multi-family units; or
The new construction of five (5) or more separate houses or dwelling units; or City Council 25 – 24 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 5 of 17 ends

The conversion of five (5) or more existing residential rental units to condominium ownership.

Target area means that area designated by the city from time to time, on an as-needed basis, as a priority area for rehabilitation due to health and safety concerns.

Total housing costs the total monthly or annual recurring expenses required of a household to obtain shelter. For a rental unit, total housing costs shall include the monthly rent payment and utilities paid by the tenant (excluding telephone and television). For an ownership unit, total housing costs shall include the mortgage payment (principal and interest), insurance, homeowners' association dues (if applicable), private mortgage insurance (if applicable), taxes, utilities, an allowance for maintenance and any other related assessments.

Sec. 41-1902. Applicability and inclusionary unit requirements. (a) Applicability. The requirements of this article shall apply to any new project comprised of five (5) or more residential lots or residential units, including new construction and condominium conversions, which meets one or all of the following applicability thresholds:
(1) A change in use to allow for residential or that exceeds the general plan or zoning prescribed densities or percentage of residential development of the subject property at the time of application.
(2) Implementation of the permitted residential density or percentage of residential development allowed as a result of city initiated zone changes or city initiated general plan amendments after November 28, 2011.
(3) Increase of the permitted percentage of residential development allowed for a mixed-use development above the percentage permitted under the zoning classification at the time of application.
(4) Development of new residential uses or increase of the permitted residential density or percentage of residential development within an overlay zone approved pursuant to Division 28 of Article I of this Chapter.
(5) Conversion of rental units to condominium ownership. (b) Applications. The inclusionary requirements shall only apply to the incremental units beyond that which is allowed as prescribed in Subsection (a) above. (c) Units for sale. If the new residential project consists of units for sale, then a minimum of five (5) percent of the total number of units in the project shall be sold to moderate-income households.
(d) Rental units. If the new residential project consists of rental units, the inclusionary units shall be constructed as follows:

City Council 25 – 25 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 6 of 17 ends

(1) A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the units shall be rented to low-income households, or
(2) A minimum of ten (10) percent shall be rented to very low-income households, or
(3) A minimum of five (5) percent shall be rented to extremely low-income households, or
(4) A minimum of ten (10) percent shall be available at an affordable housing cost of which five (5) percent rented to low-income households, three (3) percent rented to very low-income households, and two (2) percent rented to extremely low-income households.
(e) Rounding of quantities in calculations. In calculating the required number of inclusionary units, fractional units shall be rounded-up to the next whole unit. The developer may choose to pay an in-lieu fee set forth in section 41-1904(c) for the fractional units, which shall be calculated based on the number of habitable square feet applicable in each case.
(f) Displacement of existing inclusionary units. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any residential project subject to this article that results in the displacement of extremely low, very low and/or low-income household(s) shall be required to provide onsite inclusionary units as required by this article. (g) Compliance with article. All inclusionary units required by this article shall be sold or rented in compliance with this article.

Sec. 41-1903. Exempt projects.

The following are exempt from the requirements of this article:
(a) Development agreements. A residential project that is the subject of a development agreement under applicable provisions of the California Government Code that expressly provides for an exclusion to this article, provides for a different amount of inclusionary units, or provides for a different specified method for determining the in-lieu fee provisions of this ordinance, such as the timing of payment or the point in time for determining the applicable in-lieu fee amount, to satisfy the inclusionary units from that specified by this article.
(b) Project with regulatory agreement. A residential project for which a regulatory agreement has been approved, provided that the regulatory agreement is effective at the time the residential project would otherwise be required to comply with the requirements of this article, and there is no uncured breach of the regulatory agreement before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. This may include a residential project that has City Council 25 – 26 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 7 of 17 ends

obtained a density bonus under article XVI.I of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Such projects cannot be used to satisfy the inclusionary requirement for another project. (c) Adaptive Reuse. Adaptive reuse development projects pursuant to Chapter 41, Article XVI.II - Adaptive Reuse.
(d) Development Projects Approved Under the Provisions of Ordinance No. NS-2994 Adopted on September 1, 2020. A development project that has received entitlement approvals by city council action prior to November 16, 2021 to construct new residential units is hereby determined to have vested the right to carry out the completion and construction of the project under the regulations and provisions of Ordinance No. NS2994. The vested regulations and provisions in accordance with this section shall terminate if any or all of the entitlement approvals become invalid for any reasons or have expired under the various applicable time limits established in the Santa Ana Municipal Code. A list of these projects and the vested right(s) under Ordinance No. NS-2994 are attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.

Sec. 41-1904. Options to satisfy inclusionary requirements. (a) On-site units. The primary means of complying with the inclusionary requirements of this article shall be the provision of on-site inclusionary units in accordance with section 41-1902 above. A developer may only satisfy the requirements of this article by means of an alternative to on-site inclusionary units in accordance with the requirements and procedures of this section.
(b) Off-site units.
(1) New units. The developer may satisfy the inclusionary unit requirements for the project, in whole or in part by constructing the required new inclusionary housing at a different location within the city borders at the ratio of one square foot of habitable inclusionary unit space for each required habitable square foot. While the total habitable square footage area of the required new inclusionary units must be the same as the sumtotal of the number of habitable square feet for the project as directed by this ordinance, the number of units and bedrooms associated with the off-site units may be approved by the review authority of the city, consistent with the type of affordable housing needed at the time of project review.
(2) Rehabilitated units outside a designated target area. The developer may satisfy the inclusionary unit requirements for the project, in whole or in part by substantially rehabilitating existing housing units elsewhere within the borders of the city at a rate of one and one-half (1½) habitable square feet per each required habitable square foot of inclusionary units.
(3) Rehabilitated units within a designated target area. Upon application, the developer may satisfy the inclusionary unit requirements for the project, in whole or in part by substantially rehabilitating existing housing units elsewhere within the borders of City Council 25 – 27 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 8 of 17 ends

the city at a rate of one habitable square foot per each required habitable square foot of affordable inclusionary units.
(c) In-lieu fee.
(1) Five (5) or more units. For a residential project comprised of five (5) or more residential lots or residential units, the developer may elect to satisfy the inclusionary unit requirements for the project, in whole or in part, by payment of a fee in-lieu of constructing some or all of the required units. The total amount of the fee allowed by this section shall be calculated using the In-Lieu Fee Schedule in section 41-1904(c)(1)(i) multiplied by the sum total of the number of habitable square feet within the entire project, as measured from the exterior walls of the residential units. This calculation does not include exterior hallways, common areas, landscape, open space or exterior stairways. (i) In-Lieu Fee Schedule
Units/Lots Fee Per Square Foot of
Habitable Area
5 – 9 $6.00
10 – 14 $9.00
15 – 19 $12.00
20 or more $15.00
(ii) Local Skilled and Trained Workforce. The use of a local skilled and trained workforce shall be phased in over time and shall only apply to a development project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units opting to exercise the in-lieu fee payment option. The implementation of this subsection shall be phased as follows:
(A) Between November 16, 2021 and December 31, 2025, a
project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units exercising the option to pay the $15 per square foot in-lieu fee amount shall not be required to utilize a local skilled and trained workforce for completing the construction of the project. However, this fee shall be reduced if the developer provides the City with an executed enforceable commitment to use a “Skilled and Trained Workforce” as defined in Public Contract Code section 2601 to complete the construction of the project as specified in the table below:

Use of Skilled and Trained
Workforce
Fee Per Square Foot of
Habitable Area
30% of workforce utilizing
2 or more construction
trades
$10.00
60% of workforce utilizing
3 or more construction
trades
$5.00
City Council 25 – 28 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 9 of 17 ends

A minimum of 20% of the above work-hours shall be
performed in accordance with local hire policies
approved by the City Council.
(B) Effective January 1, 2026 and thereafter, a project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units exercising the option to pay the $15 per square foot inlieu fee amount shall be required to provide the City with an executed enforceable commitment that 30 percent of the workforce utilized to complete the construction of the project be derived from a “Skilled and Trained Workforce” as defined in Public Contract Code section 2601; and that a minimum of 35 percent of the required skilled and trained workforce total work-hours shall be performed in accordance with local hire policies approved by the City Council. This fee shall be reduced when the developer commits to a higher utilization level as specified in the table below:

Page 10 of 17 ends

and prescribed as set forth herein below. Such concessions shall not be available to those developers that choose to pay an in lieu fee rather than build the units. The developer may opt to take advantage of up to two (2) concessions among the following possible concessions:
(1) Parking concession. One on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit; two (2) on-site parking spaces for each two (2) to three (3) bedroom unit; two and one-half (2½) parking spaces for each four (4) or more bedroom unit. (2) Concession on one of the following Zoning Code site development standards:
(i) Setback reduction of up to twenty-five (25) percent reduction on subject property;
(ii) Height increase of up to twenty (20) additional feet. (b) A developer of a for sale residential project proposing to provide on-site moderate income units and a surrounding community benefit may opt to take advantage of up to three (3) of the above concessions. The surrounding community benefit will include but not be limited to park improvements, urban community gardens, developer-funded down payment assistance, or subsidy of services, activities or programs. (1) Local Density Bonus. For each 1 percent increase above 5 percent in the percentage of for-sale units affordable to moderate income households, the base density shall be increased by 1.5 percent up to a maximum of 35 percent.

Sec. 41-1905. Housing plan and housing agreement.
(a) Submittal and execution. The developer shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Inclusionary housing plan. The developer shall submit an inclusionary housing plan in a form specified by the executive director, detailing how the provisions of this article will be implemented for the proposed residential project. The inclusionary housing plan and its supportive documents, plans, and details shall be submitted at the same time as the site plan and application materials for the original project. All inclusionary housing plans shall be subject to the approval of the executive director and subject to appeal processes and procedures set forth in the Santa Ana Municipal Code. 2) Inclusionary housing agreement. The developer shall execute and cause to be recorded an inclusionary housing agreement. The inclusionary housing agreement shall be a legally binding agreement between the developer and the city, executed by the city manager, or his or her designee, and in a form and substance satisfactory to the executive director and the city attorney, and containing those provisions necessary to ensure that the requirements of this article are satisfied, whether through the provision of inclusionary units or through an approved alternative method. (b) Discretionary approvals. No discretionary approval shall be issued for a residential project subject to this article until the developer has submitted an inclusionary housing plan.

City Council 25 – 30 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 11 of 17 ends

(c) Issuance of building permit. No building permit shall be issued for a residential project subject to this article unless the executive director has approved the inclusionary housing plan, and any required inclusionary housing agreement has been recorded. (d) Issuance of certificate of occupancy. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for a residential project subject to this article unless the approved inclusionary housing plan has been fully implemented.

Sec. 41-1906. Standards.
(a) Location within project, relationship to non-inclusionary units. All inclusionary units shall be:
(1) Reasonably dispersed throughout the residential project; (2) Proportional, in number of bedrooms, gross floor area of habitable space, and location, to the market rate units;
(3) Comparable to the market rate units included in the residential project in terms of design, materials, finished quality, and appearance; and (4) Permitted the same access to project amenities and recreational facilities, as are market rate units.
(b) Timing of construction. All inclusionary units in a residential project shall be constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the market rate units. If the city approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required inclusionary units shall be provided within each phase of the residential project. (c) Location outside the proposed original project. For projects where the developer proposes to either produce new inclusionary units or rehabilitate existing off-site units to meet the inclusionary affordable housing requirements of this ordinance, the off-site project(s) containing the required inclusionary units shall be subject to the following requirements:
(1) The sum-total area (in habitable square feet) of all the newly constructed off-site inclusionary units shall be the same number of habitable square feet of inclusionary area as required by this ordinance. For the purpose of the calculation of the number of square feet of required inclusionary housing, the total gross habitable square feet of the housing units of the original market rate project shall be used, as measured from exterior walls to exterior walls of the market units provided as the base for calculation. The common areas, exterior hallways, stairways, patios, and balconies shall not be calculated in determining the number of required square feet of inclusionary housing production. All new or rehabilitated units must meet all current zoning and general plan standards.

City Council 25 – 31 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 12 of 17 ends

(2) While the total number of square feet of inclusionary housing requirement is calculated based on the requirements of this ordinance, the number of units, bedrooms and other amenities on the proposed off-site inclusionary housing location shall be approved by the review authority commensurate with the size and type of units most in demand at the time of submittal of the application.
(3) Any off-site affordable inclusionary housing project shall be substantially comparable to the market rate units included in the residential project in terms of quality of design, materials and finishes.
(4) If tenants are displaced due to rehabilitation of housing to meet the inclusionary unit requirement, the developer shall be responsible for relocation costs as required by state law.
(5) No city, housing authority, or public funds, subsidies, or participation of any kind shall be expended on the production or building of any inclusionary housing projects associated with meeting the inclusionary unit requirement. (d) Timing of construction. All inclusionary units in a residential project or proposed off-site new inclusionary units or rehabilitated units shall be constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the market rate units. If the city approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required inclusionary units shall be provided within each phase of the residential project.
(e) Units for sale.
(1) Time limit for inclusionary restrictions. A unit for sale shall be restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years.
(2) Certification of purchasers. The developer and all subsequent owners of an inclusionary unit offered for sale shall certify, on a form provided by the city, the income of the purchaser and that such owners will live in such inclusionary unit as their primary residence.
(3) Resale price control. In order to maintain the availability of inclusionary units required by this article, the resale price of an owner occupied inclusionary unit shall be limited to the lesser of the fair market value of the unit as established by a licensed real estate agent based upon three (3) comparable properties or the restricted resale price.

City Council 25 – 32 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 13 of 17 ends

(5) Forfeiture. If an inclusionary unit for sale is sold for an amount in excess of the resale price controls required by this section, the buyer and the seller shall be jointly and severally liable to the city for the amount in excess of the affordable housing cost at the time of such sale of the inclusionary unit. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the inclusionary housing fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing, city may allow the buyer and seller to cure any violation of the resale price controls within one hundred eighty (180) days.
(f) Rental units.
(1) Time limit for inclusionary restrictions. A rental inclusionary unit shall remain restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for fifty-five (55) years.
(2) Certification of renters. The owner of any rental inclusionary unit shall certify, on a form provided by the city, the income of all members of the household above the age of eighteen (18) at the time of the initial rental and annually thereafter. (3) Forfeiture. Any lessor who leases an inclusionary unit in violation of this article shall be required to forfeit to the city all money so obtained. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the inclusionary housing fund.
(g) Execution and recording of documents. The executive director may require the execution and recording of whatever documents are required to ensure enforcement of this section; including, but not limited to, promissory notes, deeds of trust, resale restrictions, rights of first refusal, options to purchase, and/or other documents, which shall be recorded against all inclusionary units.
(h) General prohibitions.
(1) No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit at a price or rent in excess of the maximum amount allowed by any restriction placed on the unit in accordance with this article.
(2) No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit to a person or persons that do not meet the income restrictions placed on the unit in accordance with this article. (3) No person shall provide false or materially incomplete information to the city or to a seller or lessor of an inclusionary unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which that person is not eligible.
(i) Principal residency requirement.

1. The owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall reside in the unit for not less than ten (10) out of every twelve (12) months.

City Council 25 – 33 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 14 of 17 ends

2. No owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall lease or sublease, as applicable, an inclusionary unit without the prior permission of the executive director.

Sec. 41-1907. Reserved.

Sec. 41-1909. Inclusionary housing fund.
(a) Inclusionary housing fund. There is hereby established a separate fund of the city, to be known as the inclusionary housing fund. All monies collected pursuant to this article shall be deposited in the inclusionary housing fund. Additional monies from other sources may be deposited in the inclusionary housing fund. The monies deposited in the inclusionary housing fund shall be subject to the following conditions:
(1) Monies deposited into the inclusionary housing fund must be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income households in the city as specified in the city's affordable housing funds policies and procedures. A priority will be on the creation of affordable housing opportunities or units from the existing market rate housing stock rather than construction of new affordable housing units and on the creation of new affordable housing opportunities for large families currently living in the City. This includes, but is not limited to, the purchase and rehabilitation of units for sale. Monies may also be used to pay for one-time programs for code enforcement, quality of life and general health and safety activities. Monies may also be used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this article. (2) The fund shall be administered by the executive director, or his or her designee, who may develop procedures in the city's affordable housing funds policies and City Council 25 – 34 2/15/2022
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Page 15 of 17 ends

procedures to implement the purposes of the inclusionary housing fund consistent with the requirements of this article and any adopted budget of the city. (3) Monies deposited in accordance with this section shall be used in accordance with the affordable housing funds policies and procedures, housing element, consolidated plan, or subsequent plan adopted by the city council to construct, rehabilitate, or subsidize affordable housing or to recapture affordable housing at risk of market conversion, or to assist other government entities, private organizations, or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, pre-home ownership coinvestment, pre-development loan funds, participation leases, or other public-private partnership arrangements. The inclusionary housing fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.
(4) A developer receiving funding from the inclusionary housing fund shall implement a local preference in their resident selection criteria and marketing policies meeting guidelines established by the executive director. (5) A developer receiving funding from the inclusionary housing fund, as well as its contractors and subcontractors at every tier performing work for the new housing units is encouraged to negotiate in good faith to provide the City with an enforceable commitment that a minimum 30% of the labor utilizing 2 or more construction trades be performed by a “Skilled and Trained Workforce” as defined in Public Contract Code section 2601 to complete the construction of the project. If so provided, a minimum of 35% of such labor for the project shall be performed in accordance with local hire policies approved by the City Council.

Sec. 41-1910. Administrative.
(a) In-lieu fee calculation. The amount per square foot of the inclusionary housing inlieu fee shall be subject to city council review and consideration as needed. (b) Administration fees. The council may by resolution establish reasonable fees and deposits for the administration of this article including an annual monitoring fee and an inclusionary housing plan submittal fee.
(c) Monitoring/audits. At the time of initial occupancy, and annually thereafter, the city will monitor the project to ensure that the income verifications are correct and in compliance with the inclusionary housing administrative procedures. For ownership units, the city shall monitor to verify that owner-occupancy requirements are maintained.

Developer/property owners are required to cooperate with the city in promptly providing all information requested by the city in monitoring compliance with program requirements.

Page 16 of 17 ends

inclusionary housing plan and agreement, and physical inspections of the residential project.
(e) Administrative procedures. The city manager is hereby authorized and directed to promulgate administrative procedures for the implementation of this article.

Secs. 41-1911—41-1999. Reserved.

Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Section 7. The Clerk of the Council shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.

ADOPTED this _______ day of ___________, 2021.
_________________________
Vicente Sarmiento
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Page 17 of 17 ends

Date: ________________ ____________________________________ Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council 25 – 37 2/15/2022
2021 List of Entitled Projects Vested Under the
Regulations and Provisions of Ordinance No. NS-2994
The development projects listed in Table 1 have received entitlement approvals by Planning Commission and/or City Council action prior to November 16, 2021, to construct new residential units and are hereby determined to have vested the right to carry out the completion and construction of the project under the regulations and provisions of Ordinance No. NS-2994 (HOO). The vested regulations and provisions shall automatically terminate if any or all of the entitlement approvals become invalid for any reasons or have expired under the various applicable time limits established in the Santa Ana Municipal Code or any applicable State Covid-19 pandemic relief or other applicable time extension provisions. Ordinance No. NS-2994 is incorporated herein by reference.

Table 1. Entitled Projects Vested Under the Regulations and Provisions of Ordinance No. NS-2994 No. Project Address Project Name Number of
Dwelling Units
HOO Compliance Requirements

1. 1122 N. Bewley Street Bewley Townhomes 10 Provide inclusionary units as required under NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of
$5/sf

2. 301 N. Mountain View Street Mountain View
Townhomes
8 Provide inclusionary units as required by
NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of $5/sf

3. 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive The Madison 260 Provide inclusionary units as required by NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of $5/sf

4. 1109 N. Broadway One Broadway Plaza 415 $15/sf in-lieu payment under a project Mutual Declaration

5. 3025 W. Edinger Avenue Haphan Townhomes 17 Provide inclusionary units as required by NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of $5/sf

6. 2800 N. Main Street/Specific
Plan No. 4
MainPlace Mall
Transformation 1,900
residential units
1,900 Provide inclusionary units as required by
NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of $5/sf

7. 419 N. Harbor Boulevard
(previously 421 N. Harbor
Boulevard)
Fifth and Harbor
Mixed Use Apartments
94 Provide inclusionary units as required by
NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of $5/sf

8. 3417 W. Fifth Street West Fifth Villas 8 Provide inclusionary units as required by NS-2994 or payment of in-lieu of $5/sf
The development projects listed in Table 2 have received entitlement approvals by Planning Commission or City Council action prior to November 16, 2021, but did not trigger HOO provisions and have been identified herein for implementation clarity.

Table 2. Entitled Projects Not Triggering HOO requirements No. Project Address Project Name Number of
Dwelling Units
HOO Compliance Requirements

1. 201 W. Third Street 3rd and Broadway 171 HOO provisions not applicable to project

2. 409 E. Fourth Street and 509 E.

Fourth Street
4th and Mortimer 169 HOO provisions not applicable to project

3. 1801 E. Fourth Street Central Pointe 644 HOO provisions not applicable to project

4. 200 E. First American Way Legado at the Met 278 HOO provisions not applicable to project

5. 114 E. Fifth Street and 115 E.

Fifth Street
Rafferty (4th + Main) 220 HOO provisions not applicable to project

EXHIBIT A
City Council 25 – 38 2/15/2022
Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.org/pb
Item # 26
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
February 15, 2022
TOPIC: EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update AGENDA TITLE:

Public Hearing - Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 and General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06 for Santa Ana General Plan Update

RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Adopt a resolution certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06.

3. Adopt a resolution of findings to overrule the John Wayne Airport Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s determination that the Proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION & BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting on November 8, 2021, and after receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the City Council certify the Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03, including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approve General Plan Amendment No. 2020-06; and approve findings to overrule the John Wayne Airport Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s determination that the Proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

DISCUSSION
At the direction of the Mayor and City Council in late 2015, the Planning Division began efforts to complete a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan. The General Plan City Council 26 – 1 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 2 ends

is a state mandated document that includes goals, policies, implementation measures and maps that will guide Santa Ana’s physical growth for the next 25 years. The State of California requires every city to prepare and adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city, and any land outside its boundaries which is in the planning agency’s judgement bears relation to its planning.” The role of the General Plan is often referred to as the “Constitution of the City” as it serves as the guiding document by which all land use related decisions must be derived.

The City’s current General Plan (with the exception of the Housing Element) was last comprehensively adopted in 1982 and is now 39 years old. The General Plan establishes a community vision and strategies to guide growth, change and community preservation within the City, providing goals and policies to enhance, preserve and protect the unique qualities that the Santa Ana community values. The General Plan is the single-most important tool used to guide communities achieve their vision. As the General Plan is a policy document, it differs from the Zoning Code in that the Zoning Code is a regulatory implementation document which will identify specific development standards (setbacks, parking, open space etc.) for each parcel in the City. Upon adoption of the General Plan, staff will begin the process to complete a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code to implement the land use policies of the General Plan and to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Code.

The comprehensive update to the General Plan document, known as “Golden City Beyond – A Shared Vision for Santa Ana,” is comprised of two separate documents:
 The General Plan (comprised of three Sections and 12 Elements)  Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report At the Planning Commission public hearing on November 9, 2020, concern was voiced regarding the City’s need to address existing and future need for park and recreation resources, environmental health concerns, and broadening the community outreach to environmental justice (EJ) communities. Through the 2021 EJ community outreach described below, and collaboration with community serving organizations, neighborhood leaders, and interests parties; a number of Draft General Plan (August 2021) policies and programs were modified. These modifications, minor corrections to text and maps, and refinement to better align general plan land use density/ intensity with existing zoning were provided at the November 8, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing, and incorporated into the December 2021 Draft General Plan. Exhibit 4 provides Clarifications to the General Plan related to
aligning the proposed general plan land use intensity with the existing zoning, and other minor modifications, that have been incorporated in the December 2021. Additionally, other text corrections and implementation timeframes have been revised due to the delay in the adoption in the General Plan Update.

City Council 26 – 2 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 3 ends

Community Engagement
The City’s General Plan is a community-wide vision document that is intended to address and respond to community needs. As such, the comprehensive update to the General Plan required staff to advertise and educate community members about the process to as wide an audience as possible.

Over the past six years, an extensive public outreach campaign was conducted to meaningfully engage the public and gather feedback and direction to create the vision for the future of Santa Ana and guide the update of the plan. These public outreach efforts included:
 Over 60 community meetings and workshops
 Individual community workshops within each of the five Focus Areas with over 300 residents, business leaders, and community stakeholders participating in the workshops.
 Distribution of an online community survey with over 650 respondents to collect input on the content of the General Plan
 Approximately 44,000 direct mailers sent to property owners and tenants in Focus Areas
 Development of a multi lingual videos on the General Plan Update  A dedicated webpage (santa-ana.org/general-plan) with continuous updates on the General Plan update process and related documents as well as information about Environmental Justice. Also includes an online web learning tool with a narrated presentation to help educate and increase awareness on Environmental Justice issues.
 Presentations at neighborhood Communication Linkages (Com-Link) meetings  Meetings with Environmental Justice groups and roundtables (Madison Park Neighborhood Association, Logan Neighborhood Association, Artesia-Pilar Neighborhood Association, Orange County Environmental Justice)  Attendance at approximately 100 CARES events (in neighborhoods and evening City Park events) from late-August through the end of October within Environmental Justice communities to discuss the General plan update with residents  Planning Commission study sessions, most recently on April 12th, August 9th, August 23rd and September 13th
 City Council study sessions
 One-on-one meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council General Plan Advisory Group
Following direction from the City Council in 2015 to comprehensively update the General Plan, a 17-member General Plan Advisory Group (GPAG) was established to provide guidance to City staff and the consultant team early in the process. Building on the feedback from the prior community outreach, the GPAG was critical in developing goals and policies City Council 26 – 3 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 4 ends

that would serve as the foundation of the General Plan elements. The GPAG was also tasked with functions such as formulating a community vision, identifying area-wide and community-wide land use planning issues, and prioritizing economic development activities.

The GPAG was comprised of representatives from various commissions, residents, business owners, interest groups, youth and property owners to represent the community’s interests. The GPAG held several meetings through 2016, providing direction to staff on key matters that are now embodied in the updated General Plan.

Environmental Justice Focus
As directed by Planning Commission public hearing on November 9, 2020, additional outreach was conducted to further provide Santa Ana’s disadvantaged communities, or “environmental justice (EJ) communities”, an opportunity to share their experiences and issues regarding environmental health and quality of life. Thus, Planning staff facilitated a multi-faceted outreach campaign during January through May 2021. The campaign began with the gathering of a General Plan Outreach Roundtable, with representatives from community serving organizations, neighborhood associations, and local stakeholders providing ideas and feedback on tools and strategies that could be used to effectively engage as many community members as possible. This effort included a multilingual EJ Survey (electronic and hard copy), which was publicized on various social media platforms, neighborhood yard signs, and collaboration with community groups and neighborhood leaders. Ten virtual community forums were held due to COVID-19; each focusing in on listening to the lived experiences of residents, property owners, and community stakeholders within specific geographic areas in the city that are identified as “EJ communities.” Trilingual (English, Spanish and Vietnamese) flyers encouraging participation in the 10 community forums and EJ survey were mailed to over 40,000 property owners and residents/occupant within Santa Ana’s EJ communities. Finally, in August 2021 one in-person EJ forum was held to share the results of the EJ survey and proposed general plan policy and program refinements, as well as to host a panel discussion with local EJ “champions” such a Madison Park, OCEJ and the Orange County Water District.

PROPOSED 2020-2045 GENERAL PLAN – SANTA ANA: GOLDEN CITY BEYOND Development of Core Values
A variety of community issues and considerations were identified through the different community outreach activities. With this community input, and with the input of the GPAG, a Draft General Plan Policy Framework was created in December 2018. Included within the Framework was a set of Community "Core Values" that were created to collectively reflect the voice of the Santa Ana community and to express its environmental justice principals.

These Core Values: Health, Equity, Sustainability, Culture and Education, serve as the foundation of the goals, policies and implementation items found throughout the General Plan Elements.

City Council 26 – 4 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 5 ends

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, 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
City Council 26 – 5 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 6 ends

Senate Bill 1000 was signed into law in 2016 requires cities to identify “environmental justice” or “disadvantaged communities” within their jurisdiction as part of the general plan process. This law has several purposes, including facilitating transparency and public engagement in local governments’ planning and decision-making processes, and to identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities that prioritize improvements and programs to address the needs of disadvantaged communities. It also requires that cities promote equitable access to healthinducing benefits, such as healthy food options, housing, public facilities, and recreation.

Given that the environmental justice issues touches all aspects and all elements of the General Plan, it was determined early in the process that the best fit for the City is to incorporate environmental justice policies woven into the fabric of the various Elements.

To identify for the public and the reader, a unique identifying logo consisting of a colored tile with the letters “Eq” in the center and “EJ” in the upper right corner has been incorporated into the various General Plan policies and implementation measures that address environmental justice concerns in the City.

Additionally, the City prepared optional elements based on the input from the community to address special and unique community priorities. These elements include the Community, Economic Prosperity, Public Services, Historic Preservation, and Urban Design elements.

Outlined below is an overview of the 11 Elements that are being updated, excluding the Housing Element as mentioned previously:

Community Element. The Community Element is a new element of the Santa Ana General Plan. The element reinforces the city’s values of recreation, culture, education, health and wellness, and cultivates opportunities for improved quality of life for all residents. The goals and policies of this element can be realized through partnerships with local agencies and organizations on facilities, activities and events throughout Santa Ana
This Element functions in tandem with other elements of the General Plan, such as Open Space, which contains policies related to parks and recreation facilities. Several plans and programs implemented by the City and other agencies and organizations overlap with the goals and policies of this Element, such as the Community Arts and Culture Master Plan, which establishes goals and strategies on topics such as cultural equity, infrastructure for the arts, communitywide access, youth programming, and place making.

There are 3 goals, 28 policies and 18 implementation items associated with this element.

This element is not mandated by State law and is an optional element.

Mobility Element. The Mobility Element, known as the Circulation Element in the current General Plan, is the City’s blueprint for moving people, goods, and resources throughout the community. Moving beyond mere functionality, the City seeks to improve the quality of life in Santa Ana by providing more complete streets, offering ways to be more active, and conserving natural resources. In planning the City’s transportation system for the City Council 26 – 6 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 7 ends

21st Century, the City is also making the community safer, more affordable, and more livable.

Santa Ana envisions a balanced multimodal transportation system that supports community values. These values include a vibrant local economy, healthy neighborhoods, health and wellness, and an attractive environment. Context sensitive design solutions strengthen the livability, vitality and safety of our neighborhoods, districts, and corridors.

There are 5 goals, 46 policies and 45 implementation items associated with this Element.

This Element is one of the State mandated elements.

Economic Prosperity Element. The Economic Prosperity Element, identified as the Economic Development in the existing General Plan, will ensure Santa Ana’s local economy. The Element defines Santa Ana’s role in the broader regional economy, expands, maintains, and enhances job opportunities, attracts and retains a balance of business types, provides sufficient revenue for public services, and contributes to the overall quality of life experienced by the City’s residents.

The goals and policies of this Element will inform and guide decisions across local government. The City intends that its allocation of resources, the operation of its agencies, and the application of its regulatory authority will grow and diversify the local economy. The City further intends that local economic growth and diversification will reduce poverty, increase overall prosperity, improve health and wellness outcomes, expand housing opportunities, and increase quality of life choices available to City residents.

There are 4 goals, 39 policies and 31 implementation items associated with this Element.

This Element is not a State mandated element.

Public Services Element. The Public Services Element, identified as the Public Facilities Element in the current General Plan, provides Santa Ana’s diverse population with quality services and infrastructure, including accessible public facilities and enhanced public safety. Anticipated growth will require the City to fulfill community needs and to ensure proper management of those needs. It is important that public facilities and services are equitably distributed and maintained at sustainable levels throughout the community. A wide range of City entities and external agencies work closely together to provide the full spectrum of services and facilities.

There are 3 goals, 38 policies and 40 implementation items associated with this element.

This Element is an optional General Plan Element.

Conservation Element. The protection and management of Santa Ana’s air, water, and energy resources are essential for a healthy, sustainable and equitable path forward.

Additionally, the preservation of the remaining stretches of undisturbed plant and wildlife environment, such as in Santiago Park, is important to residents.

The Conservation Element identifies the community’s natural resources and illustrates the benefits for retention, enhancement, and development of these resources towards City Council 26 – 7 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 8 ends

improving quality of life and the environment as a whole. This Element will guide the City in its efforts to prioritize sustainability and enhance the environment for current and future generations.

The Core Values reinforce the City’s commitment to enable all persons to enjoy equal access to healthy environments, healthy food, parks and recreational facilities, and civic engagement opportunities. However, the City recognizes that throughout Santa Ana’s communities, some bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and associated health risks. As a result, this element also addresses environmental justice issues within disadvantaged communities, which aims to correct inequity by reducing pollution and increasing public investment in the communities most affected while ensuring their participation and input is considered in decision making-process.

There are 4 goals, 39 policies and 39 implementation items associated with this element.

This Element is a State mandated Element
Open Space Element. Open space is a limited and valuable resource, providing multiple benefits to those living and working in Santa Ana. Open space provides a place of relaxation and reprieve from the urban environment. Open space also offers places to gather, celebrate, learn or exercise, whether alone, with friends or family, or with other members of the community. Open space is so important that its presence or absence can profoundly shape the physical, social, mental and economic health, and overall wellbeing 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.

City Council 26 – 8 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 9 ends

Safety Element. The Safety Element combines the Public Safety and Seismic Safety elements of the existing General Plan into one document. Public health and safety and protection from the risks of natural and human-induced disasters, emergencies, and hazards are vital in establishing a safe and healthy environment for Santa Ana’s residents, workers, and visitors. The purpose of the Safety Element is to eliminate and minimize risks associated with natural and human-generated hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and hazardous materials. By assessing and preparing for levels of risk, the City can endure the range of safety hazards and adapt to changes over time.

This Element works in tandem with other elements of the General Plan, such as the Public Services Element, which contains goals and policies related to police, fire, and health services, as well as emergency planning and resiliency.

There are 4 goals, 24 policies and 27 implementation items associated with this Element.

This is a State mandated element.

Historic Preservation Element. The Historic Preservation Element is a new element of the Santa Ana General Plan. Santa Ana was incorporated as a city in 1886 and designated the County seat in 1889. Historic preservation of the City’s cultural and architectural heritage is an essential part of the City’s economic vitality and identity.

Residents take pride in the architectural heritage of the City, including its historical buildings and unique neighborhood character. Sites such as the Old Orange County Courthouse, Pacific Substation, Yost Theatre, and the Spurgeon Building reflect the City’s rich cultural history and architectural diversity.

The purpose of the Historic Preservation Element is to provide guidance in developing and implementing activities that ensure that identification, designation and protection of architectural, historical, cultural and archaeological resources are part of the City’s planning, development and permitting processes. Through historic preservation policies and programs, Santa Ana’s heritage and diversity will continue to be a source of community pride.

There are 3 goals, 21 policies and 28 implementation items associated with this Element.

This is an optional element of a General Plan.

Land Use Element. The Land Use Element provides a long-range guide for the physical development of the City, reflecting the community’s vision for a high quality of life. This Element guides the distribution, location, and size of new development, ensuring that residential neighborhoods are protected, and future growth is sustainable and minimizes potential conflicts. Through its focus on the pattern of land use, this element is also a tool to promote public health, reduce infrastructure costs, enhance local economies, and address long-term environmental issues such as air quality, climate change and water resources.

The development, use and distribution of land are critical to achieving the City’s vision and adhering to the Core Values. As stewards of the land, the City must plan for uses and development that creates a sustainable, healthy and livable City, ensures equitable City Council 26 – 9 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 10 ends

outcomes and land use distributions, protects and enhances cultural and community assets, and provides opportunities for growth and prosperity. As in other cities, land is a finite and valuable resource. Its use dictates the City’s economic and fiscal future.

The Land Use Element preserves existing neighborhoods by directing new growth to major corridors and avoids land use changes in existing established neighborhoods. The five growth areas are identified as Focus Areas, and include: South Main Street, Grand /Seventeenth Street, West Santa Ana Boulevard (adjacent to the OC Streetcar line), 55 Freeway/Dyer Road, and South Bristol Street. The proposed Land Use Element will connect existing planning areas in the City (Transit Zoning Code, Harbor Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor, Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone, etc.,) with the five proposed Focus Areas. Within these Focus Areas, the City anticipates the most potential for major development. A list of the parcels proposed for General Plan land use designation changes are included in Exhibit 7.

There are 4 goals, 42 policies and 58 implementation items associated with this element.

This is one of the State mandated elements.

Urban Design Element. Urban design is the process of shaping the physical character and organization of the City and defining the relationship between people and their environment. It respects the history of a place, considers existing organizational patterns and the form and character of existing buildings, supports healthy outdoor spaces, and is mindful of the natural environment. These considerations unite to define a distinct visual quality and sense of place that reflects community values.

The Urban Design Element establishes the long-range vision for the physical development, visual qualities, and sensory experience of the City. This Element, in coordination with other elements of the General Plan, orchestrates a safe, functional and aesthetically pleasing urban environment. Specifically, the Urban Design Element addresses the public realm, building form, and establishes programs and measures to improve the physical setting in which community life takes place while curtailing obsolete, dysfunctional, and chaotic development.

There are 7 goals, 50 policies and 30 implementation items associated with this Element.

This is an optional element of the General Plan.

City Council 26 – 10 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 11 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Draft Programs Environment Impact Report (August 2020)
The comprehensive update to the General Plan required extensive environmental review.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and after completion of the Initial Study for the project, it was determined that CEQA required the preparation and certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for this project. The purpose of a PEIR is to identify and disclose the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the way those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the Draft PEIR analyzes issues related to: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazard and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; and Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft PEIR also studies alternatives to the General Plan Update, as well as direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project.

The original Draft PEIR (August 2020) for the General Plan Update (GPU) was prepared and distributed for the required 45-day public review between August 3, 2020, and September 16, 2020. However, due to community request for additional time to review the document, the comment period was extended by an additional 20 days to October 6, 2020.

At the public hearing on November 9, 2020, the Planning Commission voted to continue the consideration of the GPU and the certification of the Final PEIR (October 2020) to a future date to allow additional time for outreach to Santa Ana’s environmental justice (EJ) communities.

Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (August 2021) In 2021, the City initiated an expanded outreach program focusing on environmental justice and specific community concerns raised in comments received. Pursuant to Draft PEIR comments, the Planning Commission public hearing, and the expanded community outreach program, the City made the decision to prepare a Recirculated Draft PEIR. The Recirculated document concluded that the recreation-related impacts of the proposed GPU would result in a significant impact and defined a new project alternative to reduce these impacts. It also further discussed and evaluated impacts related to environmental justice, including air quality, hazards, and recreation/open space.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, the Recirculated Draft PEIR does not need to include all the topical CEQA sections from the original Draft PEIR. Rather, the Recirculated Draft PEIR (August 2021) updates and supplements only the three topical City Council 26 – 11 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 12 ends

environmental topics of Air Quality, Hazards, and Recreation. The Recirculated Draft PEIR also includes an updated/supplemented Project Alternatives chapter containing a new Reduced Park Demand Alternative to reduce the significant recreation impacts associated with the proposed GPU, as well as an additional mitigation measure and reference to General Plan policy and implementation action refinements. The Recirculated Draft PEIR incorporates the previous Draft PEIR by reference, as appropriate. In particular, the previous Draft PEIR document and its appendices are referenced for long and/or technical descriptions of the environmental setting that remain applicable to the updated GPU.

Three project alternatives were analyzed within the Final PEIR (October 2020) document.

These included a no project alternative, where the existing General Plan document would remain in effect (Alternative 1); a reduced intensity alternative with two focus areas (55 Freeway/Dyer Road and South Bristol Street) would be reduced to approximately 50 percent of the maximum densities allowed by their respective land use designation (Alternative 2); and build out of the site to be consistent with the Southern California’s Association of Regional Government’s (SCAG) RTP/SCS projections, which could result in an approximate 75 percent reduction in both the number of allowable units and commercial/industrial square footage (Alternative 3).

The Recirculated Draft PEIR (August 2021) introduces a reduced park demand project (Alternative 4) that reduces residential growth by 11,225 units by eliminating or reducing residential land uses and intensity in the five focus areas. Overall, nonresidential square footage would be reduced by a total of approximately 2.8 million square feet within the focus areas compared to the proposed GPU. New residential growth under this alternative would largely be in currently planned areas that are generally near a number of existing park facilities, with some residential growth would be introduced into two focus areas at substantially lower intensities to reduce the potential impact on park facilities.

As required, the Draft Recirculated PEIR (August 2021) was circulated for public review between August 6, 2021 and September 20, 2021, with the Notice of Availability (NOA) instructing reviewers to only submit comments on the three revised chapters included in the Recirculated Draft PEIR. The comments in the original Final PEIR adequately address comments received on portions of the Draft PEIR that have not been recirculated. During the review and comment period, staff held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Recirculated PEIR and a work-study session with the Planning Commission on September 13, 2021.

The Draft PEIR (August 2020), Final PEIR (October 2020), and Final Recirculated PEIR including all report appendices, are posted on the City’s website. https://www.santaana.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 City Council 26 – 12 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 13 ends

detailed Response to Comments, revisions to the Draft documents including clarifications and/or corrections to typographical errors, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP contains mitigation measures to address impacts to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, tribal cultural resources, and recreation. The response to comments, MMRP and Final PEIR were published on November 2, 2021 for public review. The Draft PEIR (August 2020) and Draft Recirculated PEIR (August 2021) responses to comments document, revisions to the Draft PEIR, and the MMRP constitute the Final PEIR for the project.

The Final Recirculated PEIR identifies six significant and unavoidable impacts associated with this project, which pertain to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Population and Housing, and Recreation.

City of Santa Ana is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Air quality in the Basin is already significantly impacted and even without any new projects, air quality issues are beyond mitigation. The impact to air quality as a result of General Plan implementation falls into two categories: Operational Emissions impacts which are project specific and cumulative; and Localized Criterial Pollutant and Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Impacts which are related to increased density and proximity of residential land uses to transit and commercial centers.

Cultural Resource impacts result from the proposed General Plan allowing development in areas that have historic resources identified by previous cultural resource surveys, with development in these areas potentially causing the disturbance of historic resources in the plan area.

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) impacts are project specific and cumulative. They are attributed to ongoing operational impacts of potential future businesses. The threshold for GHG would exceed established ratios thresholds under Executive Order S-03-05.

Noise impacts are also project specific and cumulative. They are attributed to ongoing operational impacts of potential future businesses, as well as the location of sensitive receptors in relationship to noise generating activities. Further, buildout of the General Plan update would expose residents to projects generating traffic noise.

Population and housing impacts associated with the General Plan buildout related to the anticipated growth both in population and housing units would exceed the Orange County Council of Government projections by up to 38 percent, with no feasible mitigation measure to address the issue.

Finally, Recreation impacts from the proposed General Plan may result in substantial physical deterioration of recreational resources and the need to construct or expand City’s public parks and recreational facilities to address existing and future demand.

City Council 26 – 13 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 14 ends

CEQA allows lead agencies to approve projects despite having significant and unavoidable impacts by adopting a statement of overriding considerations. A statement of overriding considerations documents the reasons why an agency chose to approve a project despite its significant and unavoidable impacts based on range of balancing factors, including economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits conveyed by project.

City staff is recommending adoption of a statement of overriding consideration for the General Plan and its implementation actions. In this instance, the economic, social, and other benefits of the General Plan implementation collectively outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts noted above. Such benefits include the implementation of policies and programs preserving and enhancing community character, increasing community sustainability, providing high-quality and diverse housing opportunities, increasing economic vitality via new and business creation, supporting technological advancements, and maintaining compliance with current law. The acceptance of the noted significant and unavoidable impacts does not mean the City will forego efforts to mitigate the impacts to extent feasible. In addition, future projects will be subject to the discretionary review procedures through which the City will consider project specific environmental impacts and/or subject to regulations to offset impacts. As these reviews occur, decision makers will be updated on the status of application mitigation measures when making decision on such projects.

Public notices for the City Council public hearing were mailed to interested parties, as well as property owners and occupants/tenants in the five Land Use Focus Area and a 500-foot radius from the Focus Area boundaries. In addition, a newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Reporter on November 26, 2021.

Airport Land Use Commission Review
The proposed changes to the Land Use Element to adopt the South Bristol and the 55 Freeway/Dyer Road Focus Areas required the General Plan update to be presented to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with their Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). On October 15th, 2020 the ALUC determined that the General Plan update conflicts with the goals and objectives of the AELUP and voted 5:0 to find the General Plan update inconsistent with their plan. As a result, on October 16th, 2020, at a special City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to file a Notice of Intent to Overrule the ALUC’s determination. The draft City Council resolution for overruling the ALUC’s determination has been attached at Exhibit 8.

Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the City Council certifying Final Recirculated Program Environmental Impact Report No. 2020-03 (SCH No. 2020029087), including adoption of environmental findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and City Council 26 – 14 2/15/2022
EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update February 15, 2022

Page 15 ends

adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopt a resolution of findings to overrule the John Wayne Airport Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s determination that the Proposed General Plan Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this action.

EXHIBIT(S)

1. EIR Resolution, including Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

2. General Plan Amendment Resolution

3. General Plan 2045 – Santa Ana Beyond Link (December 2021)

4. Clarifications to Draft General Plan

5. Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Link

6. Planning Commission staff report, exhibits, presentation, and written public comments of November 8, 2021 are incorporated herein by reference and can be viewed at the following link: Item - PrimeGov Portal

7. List of Parcel with General Plan Land Use Designation Changes

8. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Override Resolution Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Kristine Ridge, City Manager
City Council 26 – 15 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 1 of 7 ends

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 City Council 26 – 16 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 2 of 7 ends

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 City Council 26 – 17 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 3 of 7 ends

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 workstudy 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 City Council 26 – 18 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 4 of 7 ends

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 City Council 26 – 19 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 5 of 7 ends

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.

City Council 26 – 20 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 6 of 7 ends

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
City Council 26 – 21 2/15/2022
Resolution No. 2021-XXX

Page 7 of 7 ends

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
City Council 26 – 22 2/15/2022

EXHIBIT A
All materials for Exhibit A may be accessed at: https://www.santa-ana.org/generalplan/general-plan-environmental-documents and are also on file and available at the City’s Planning and Building Agency.

City Council 26 – 23 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 24 2/15/2022
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:

City Council 26 – 25 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 26 2/15/2022
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
City Council 26 – 27 2/15/2022
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, City Council 26 – 28 2/15/2022
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).

City Council 26 – 29 2/15/2022
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:

City Council 26 – 30 2/15/2022
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/generalplan/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 City Council 26 – 31 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 32 2/15/2022
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
City Council 26 – 33 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 34 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 35 2/15/2022
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, bikefriendly, 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.

City Council 26 – 36 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 37 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 38 2/15/2022
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
City Council 26 – 39 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 40 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 41 2/15/2022
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.santaana.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 City Council 26 – 42 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 43 2/15/2022
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 DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE PEIR This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without implementation of project-specific mitigation measures. This determination, however, does assume compliance with existing regulations, as detailed in each respective topical section of Chapter 5 in the Updated Draft PEIR.
(a) Aesthetics: Buildout under the GPU will be at a greater intensity/density in all five focus areas compared to existing conditions. While maximum height would generally be similar to existing buildings, the overall increase in allowed intensity and height across the focus areas would lead to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana’s existing skyline. Buildout under the GPU would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (such as the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek) since these existing open space parcels would remain unchanged. Additionally, no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. Therefore, the GPU would not damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings, trees, and historic buildings within state scenic City Council 26 – 44 2/15/2022
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 SWPPP and a soil engineering evaluation, would reduce soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the CBC design code, which has been adopted by the City and requires that structures be designed to mitigate expansive and compressible soils, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The probability of subsidence impacts is generally low in the majority of Santa Ana; however, the statutorily required sustainable groundwater management practices of the Orange County Water District would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Future development in the plan area would require connection to the City’s sewer system as the City of Santa Ana does not allow for the installation of septic tanks.
(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The GPU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

City Council 26 – 45 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 46 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 47 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 48 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 49 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 50 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 51 2/15/2022
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.

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 City Council 26 – 52 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 53 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 54 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 55 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 56 2/15/2022
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 (operationsrelated 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 (operationsrelated 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 City Council 26 – 57 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 58 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 59 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 60 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 61 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 62 2/15/2022
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, City Council 26 – 63 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 64 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 65 2/15/2022
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 dieselpowered 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.

City Council 26 – 66 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 67 2/15/2022
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, City Council 26 – 68 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 69 2/15/2022
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:

City Council 26 – 70 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 71 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 72 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 73 2/15/2022
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 lessthan-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.

City Council 26 – 74 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 75 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 76 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 77 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 78 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 79 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 80 2/15/2022
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, City Council 26 – 81 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 82 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 83 2/15/2022
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, City Council 26 – 84 2/15/2022
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 mixeduse 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.

City Council 26 – 85 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 86 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 87 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 88 2/15/2022
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 (projectrelated), 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.

City Council 26 – 89 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 90 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 91 2/15/2022
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.

City Council 26 – 92 2/15/2022
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
[email protected]
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: JoAnn Hadfield, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com

EXHIBIT C
City Council 26 – 93 2/15/2022
City Council 26 – 94 2/15/2022

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORIN G AND REPORTING PROG RAM

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 City Council 26 – 95 2/15/2022

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORIN G AND REPORTING PROG RAM

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

City Council 26 – 96 2/15/2022
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 City Council 26 – 97 2/15/2022

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MITIGATION MONITORIN G AND REPORTING PROG RAM

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 2 ends

Santa Ana City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Santa Ana City Council
February 15, 2022