HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 32 - Resolution of Denial: Cabrillo Town Center (1901 E Fourth Street) Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.org/planning-and-building
Item # 32
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
November 21, 2023
TOPIC: Resolution of Denial: Cabrillo Town Center (1901 E Fourth Street)
AGENDA TITLE
Resolution Approving Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 and Overturning
the Determination of the Planning Commission, Thereby Denying Site Plan Review
(SPR) No. 2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 2023-03 (County Map No.
19243) to Facilitate the Construction of a Mixed-Use Development Known as Cabrillo
Town Center at 1901 E. Fourth Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution documenting the City Council decision of October 3, 2023, denying
SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03 for the Cabrillo Town Center at 1901 E. Fourth
Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING APPEAL APPLICATION NOS. 2023-02 AND
2023-03 AND OVERTURNING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, THEREBY DENYING SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR) NO. 2023-01 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 2023-03 (COUNTY MAP NO. 19243) TO
FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS
CABRILLO TOWN CENTER AT 1901 AND 1971 EAST FOURTH STREET AND 515
AND 525 NORTH CABRILLO PARK DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY 1901 EAST FOURTH
STREET (APNS: 400-051-02; 400-051-09; 400-051-14; AND 400-051-15)
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 24, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No.
2023-03 (County Map No. 19243) to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use
development known as Cabrillo Town Center at 1901 East Fourth Street. After receiving
public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0-0-1 with
Ramos absent) to adopt a resolution approving SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-
03, with modified conditions of approval.
Resolution of Denial: Cabrillo Town Center (1901 E Fourth Street)
November 21, 2023
Page 2
3
8
8
8
On May 1, 2023, Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), submitted an appeal application (Appeal No.
2023-02) pursuant to Section 41-645 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC)
requesting that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission’s decision. On
May 3, 2023, Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the Southwest Mountains States Carpenters
(SWMSRCC), also submitted an appeal application (Appeal No. 2023-03) pursuant to
Section 41-645 of the SAMC requesting that the City Council reconsider the Planning
Commission’s decision.
Lastly, on August 17, 2023, Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the SWMSRCC, submitted a
supplemental appeal letter, outside of the 10-day appeal period, as outlined in Section
41-645(b) of the SAMC. After a public hearing at its regular meeting of October 3, 2023,
the City Council voted unanimously (5-0-2 with Councilmembers Phan and Lopez
abstaining) to approve Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 and overturn the
determination of the Planning Commission, thereby denying Site Plan review (SPR) No.
2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 2023-03. Following the City Council’s
decision, a resolution of denial has been prepared for the project (Exhibit 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines, this project is exempt from further review under Section 15061(b)(4) of the
CEQA Guidelines, as the City Council has denied Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2023-01
and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 2023-03 (County Map No. 19243).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. Resolution – Denial of SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03
Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency
Approved By: Steven A. Mendoza, Acting City Manager
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING
APPEAL APPLICATION NOS. 2023-02 AND
2023-03 AND OVERTURNING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, THEREBY DENYING SITE PLAN
REVIEW (SPR) NO. 2023-01 AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 2023-03 (COUNTY MAP
NO. 19243) TO FACILITATE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS CABRILLO TOWN
CENTER AT 1901 AND 1971 EAST FOURTH
STREET AND 515 AND 525 NORTH CABRILLO
PARK DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY 1901 EAST
FOURTH STREET (APNS: 400-051-02; 400-051-
09; 400-051-14; AND 400-051-15).
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. On April 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held
a duly noticed public hearing to consider Site Plan Review (SPR) No.
2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 2023-03 (County Map No.
19243) to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use development known as
Cabrillo Town Center (Project) at 1901 and 1971 East Fourth Street and
515 and 525 North Cabrillo Park Drive (collectively, 1901 East Fourth
Street). After receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning
Commission voted unanimously (6-0-0-1 with Ramos absent) to adopt a
resolution approving SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03, with
modified conditions of approval. Specifically, the Planning Commission
modified the conditions of approval to require the applicant, Fairfield
Realty, LLC. (Applicant), on behalf of David A. Colton, trustee of David A.
Colton Trust (Property Owner) to coordinate with the Public Works Agency
to develop a traffic-calming strategy when the Project reaches 70-percent
and 95-percent occupancy, and requires the applicant to implement such
strategy when feasible and appropriate as determined by the City.
B. On May 1, 2023, Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance
for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), submitted an appeal
application (Appeal No. 2023-02) pursuant to Section 41-645 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”) requesting that the City Council reconsider
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 2 of 10
the Planning Commission’s decision because the Project was in “violation”
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, SAFER
states that: (1) The decision of the Planning Commission was in “violation”
of CEQA; (2) The City’s determination that the Project was analyzed in the
2010 Metro East Mixed Used (MEMU) Overlay Zone Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and Subsequent EIR (SEIR) was incorrect; (3) The
Project would have new and different significant environmental impacts
that were not analyzed in the MEMU EIR; and (4) That a project-specific
EIR should have been prepared to analyze the Project.
C. On May 3, 2023, Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the Southwest Mountains
States Carpenters (SWMSRCC), also submitted an appeal application
(Appeal No. 2023-03) pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC requesting
that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission’s decision
based on the following reasons:
a. Requirement of a Local Workforce. Specifically, the appellant states
that, “The city should require the use of a local workforce to benefit
the community’s economic development and environment.”
b. Training Requirements To Prevent Community Spread Of Covid-19
And Other Infectious Diseases. Specifically, the appellants states
that, “The City should impose training requirements for the Project’s
construction activities to prevent community spread of Covid-19
and other infectious diseases.”
c. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance.
Specifically, the appellant contends the following:
i. That CEQA mandates preparation of an EIR for projects so
that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be
understood and weighed;
ii. That there are new transportation impact methodology
requirements, not analyzed in the Certified EIR;
iii. That the Project requires new feasible mitigation measures
to mitigate greenhouse gas impacts; and
iv. That the Project may have significant land use impacts
which were not analyzed in the Certified EIR.
d. Inconsistency with the General Plan. Specifically, the appellant
contends that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan
because there are no onsite affordable units.
D. On August 17, 2023, Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the SWMSRCC,
submitted a supplemental appeal letter, outside of the 10-day appeal
period, as outlined in Section 41-645(b) of the SAMC. Nonetheless, staff
provides a comprehensive response below on all appeal items received.
The subsequent letter reiterates certain points outlined in the appeal letter
dated May 3, 2023. However, SWMSRCC makes several new points in
their request that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission’s
decision, including the following reasons:
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 3 of 10
a. Infeasible Transportation Mitigation Requirements in the Certified
EIR. Specifically, the appellant contends that the City's
Transportation Mitigation Requirement is infeasible for the Project.
b. Adequate Analyzes Of Noise Impacts. Specifically, the appellant
contends that the Certified EIR fails to adequately analyze the
Project’s noise impacts, including the following:
i. That the Certified EIR fails to identify all nearby sensitive
receptors;
ii. That the Certified EIR fails to adequately characterize
ambient noise conditions;
iii. That the Certified EIR's significance threshold is inadequate;
iv. That the Certified EIR’s construction noise analysis and
miti gation measures must be revised; and
v. That the Certified EIR’s operation noise analysis
underestimates the Project’s impacts
E. On October 3, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 (SAFER) and Appeal
Application No. 2023-03 (SWMSRCC) and found that requiring local
workforce would reduce environmental impacts. Specifically, local hire
provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10-
miles or less of the Project site could reduce the length of vendor trips and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, local workforce policies
have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s
jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes
and the associated greenhouse gas emissions.
F. The City Council found that the Project was inconsistent with and will not
further the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 of the Metro East Mixed-Use
Overlay Zone (“MEMU”). Specifically, the City Council found that the
Project was inconsistent with Objectives 1.2(A) and 1.2(L) of the MEMU
Overlay Zone objectives, which promote an urban, walkable, mixed-use
environment. The principles outlined in these Objectives are consistent
with the Project site’s District Center (DC) designation of the City’s
General Plan Land Use Element, which, from the Land Use Element,
“provides for distinctly urban retail, residential mixed-use, and employment
centers that are well connected to public transportation. It includes the
City’s primary activity centers and opportunities for new urban-scale
development. This designation allows a mix of uses, including medium,
medium-high, and urban density condominiums, apartments, and
townhomes; professional offices; multilevel corporate offices; retail and
commercial services; and cultural, education, recreation, and
entertainment uses. Mixed-use projects are allowed in both horizontal
configurations, with commercial and residential uses side by side, and
vertical, with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential above.”
In failing to meet Objectives 1.2(A) and 1.2(L) of the MEMU Overlay Zone
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 4 of 10
objectives, the Project is thereby inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.
Moreover, Section 4.1.1 of the MEMU (Village Center Core: Pedestrian-
Oriented Design and Active Ground-Floor Uses) requires that the “ground
floor of buildings fronting on Fourth Street between Cabrillo Park Drive
and Park Center Drive, and Golden Circle Drive south of Fourth Street as
shown on Figure 2 shall have commercial uses and pedestrian-oriented
designs.” As the project contains residential uses on the ground floor of
Cabrillo Park Drive, the project does not satisfy this objective design
criterion of the MEMU.
G. Pursuant Section 8.2 of the MEMU, granting of a MEMU Overlay Zone
Site Plan Review approval is subject to four findings:
a. That the proposed development plan is consistent with and will
further the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 for the MEMU.
b. That the proposed development plan is consistent with the
development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU.
c. That the proposed development plan is designed to be compatible
with adjacent development in terms of similarity of scale, height,
and site configuration and otherwise achieves the objectives of the
Design Principles specified in Section 5 of the MEMU overlay
district.
d. That the land use uses, site design, and operational considerations
in the proposed development plan have been planned in a manner
that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as
specified in Section 7 of the MEMU overlay district.
H. Pursuant to Section 66474 of the California Subdivision Map Act (SMA)
and Section 34-132(c) of the SAMC, one or more of the following findings
must be established in order to deny a tentative map application:
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general
and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 5 of 10
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this
connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that
alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and
that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to
a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
I. Based on the City Council’s review and determination in its findings during
its regular meeting on October 3, 2023, finding “a” of Section 8.2 as part of
the MEMU cannot be made. Moreover, finding “b” of Section 66474 as
part of the SMA cannot be made. Therefore, approval of SPR No. 2023-01
and TTM No. 2023-03 (County Map No. 19243) cannot be granted and the
project is deemed denied.
J. On January 1, 2020, California Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (HCA), became effective and established a statewide “housing
emergency” until January 1, 2025.
K. On January 1, 2022, the HCA was extended until January 1, 2030, with
the passage of Senate Bill 8.
L. On May 11, 2022, the Applicant submitted a SB 330 Preliminary
Application for the proposed Project, which was deemed complete by staff
on June 9, 2022.
M. California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)(B) defines Housing
Development Project as Mixed-use developments consisting of residential
and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage
designated for residential use.
N. The square footage for the residential use in the proposed Project
exceeds two-thirds of the overall Project square footage. Therefore, the
Project is submitted as a Housing Development Project, pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)(B), and submitted as
an SB 330 project.
O. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), when a
local agency proposes to disapprove a project, the local agency shall base
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 6 of 10
its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon
written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the
record that both of the following conditions exist:
a. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is
disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific,
adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public
health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on
the date the application was deemed complete; and
b. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
adverse impact identified, other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the approval of the project upon the
condition that it be developed at a lower density.
P. In their decision to disapprove the Project, the City Council found that the
project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety. Specifically, by not having local hire provisions requiring that a
certain percentage of workers reside within 10-miles or less of the Project,
the construction activities associated with the proposed Project would
result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, and overall air quality that
would have adverse impacts to the public health and safety. The City
Councils findings are based on objective, identified written public health or
safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete. Specifically, the findings are based on
the complete environmental analysis concluded as part of the 2007 Metro
East Mixed Used (MEMU) Overlay Zone Final Environmental Impact
Report (“Certified EIR”). The following is an analysis of the increased
greenhouse gas emissions, as a result of the project construction with no
local hire.
Air Quality and GHG Analysis
The topic of GHG Emissions impa cts was not included in the 2006 CEQA
Guidelines, and as such, was not included in the Certified EIR’s analysis
of the MEMU’s potential impacts. However, both the existence of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion and other
activities were known at the time the Certified EIR was approved, and
existed on the date that the Project was deemed complete.
The analysis in the Certified EIR considered both the construction and
operational phases associated with implementation of the MEMU. As
required by Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, direct, indirect,
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 7 of 10
short-term, and/or long-term impacts were addressed, as appropriate, for
the environmental issue area being analyzed.
In addition, the analysis focused on the nature and magnitude of the
change in the air quality environment due to implementation of the MEMU.
Air pollutant emissions associated with the MEMU would result from
operation of the proposed developments, such as the proposed Project.
Based on analyses submitted by the appellants, the air quality and air
pollutant emission impacts associated with the Project will be exacerbated
as the Project does not include any local hire provisions, resulting in
increased length of construction crew trips, as well as trips by suppliers
(e.g., materials, construction vehicles, etc.), and increased emissions.
Moreover, construction activities would also generate emissions in the
project area and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic, as
they do not include local hire provisions. The net increase in project site
emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources
were quantitatively estimated and compared to thresholds of significance
established by the SCAQMD.
Construction emissions in the Certified EIR were also calculated using
quantifiable metrics, based on objective, identified written public health or
safety standards, or policies. Specifically, emissions were analyzed
according to the thresholds established by the SCAQMD and published in
the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. In addition, the Certified EIR
used thresholds of significance were based on Appendix G of the 2006
CEQA Guidelines. While the Certified EIR evaluated a range of potential
mitigation measures to reduce significant project impacts and
implemented all feasible mitigation measures, construction and operation
of development projects within the MEMU would result in the following
significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality:
• Short-term construction impacts resulting from peak daily emissions
of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrous Oxide (NOx);
• Operational impacts resulting from peak daily emissions of PM10,
CO, VOC, and NOx; and
• A cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for
which the proposed project region is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard resulting
from construction and operation.
Q. As outlined in the Certified EIR, even with the recommended mitigation
measures found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), the above listed air quality impacts exceeded the defined
threshold(s) of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-
than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 8 of 10
measures. Therefore, the identified impacts were considered to meet the
definition of specific, adverse impact, as defined in California Government
Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A). Moreover, because the impacts were
deemed significant and unavoidable, there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the
disapproval of the housing development project.
R. Based on the City Council’s review and determination in its findings during
its regular meeting on October 3, 2023, and based on the above air quality
analysis prepared for the MEMU Certified EIR and the analyses provided
by the appellants, the Project is disapproved pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).
Section 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from further review under
Section 15061(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, as the City Council has denied Site Plan
Review (SPR) No. 2023-01 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 2023-03 (County Map
No. 19243).
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby approves Appeal
Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03, overturning the Planning Commission’s
approval, thereby denying Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2023-01 and Tentative Tract
Map (TTM) No. 2023-03 (County Map No. 19243). This decision is based upon the
evidence submitted at the October 3, 2023 hearing, which includes, but is not limited to:
the Request for City Council Action dated October 3, 2023, and exhibits attached
thereto; findings of inconsistency with the MEMU Overlay Zone and the SMA that were
made during the regular City Council meeting of October 3, 2023; and the public
testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
[This space intentionally left blank]
[Signatures on the following page]
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 9 of 10
ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________, 2023.
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
By:________________________
Jose Montoya
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers _______________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________
Resolution No. 2023-xx
Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall , City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No.
2023-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana on _______________, 2023.
Date: ________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk