HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Responses to CEQA Related - Agenda Item No. 28
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This document provides responses to the UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11” or “commentor”)
written comments (the “Letter”) received by the City of Santa Ana in advance of the City
Council’s consideration of the proposed Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project. This response
addresses the main topics covered within the Letter.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
1
55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
The Letter provides comments regarding affordable housing, the appropriate level of
analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the appropriateness of a
hotel use as part of the proposed Project. As explained in detail below, the Village Santa Ana
Specific Plan Project (“Project”) contributes to the potential affordable housing production through
the provision of in-lieu fees; appropriately and conservatively studied a maximum buildout with
appropriate mitigation pursuant to CEQA; and included hotel uses as an appropriate use given
the applicable General Plan Land Use Designation.
I. The Project Provides In-Lieu Fees that Can Contribute to Affordable Housing
Production within the City
The commenter claims there is “uncertainty” regarding how the Project will contribute to
affordable housing in the City. The Project contributes to Santa Ana’s affordable housing by
providing significant in-lieu fees as permitted by the City’s Affordable Housing and Opportunity
Creation Ordinance (“AHOCO”).
The AHOCO generally applies to housing projects proposing five or more units that are
also requesting an increase in allowable density or are located in certain sections of the City that
were “up-zoned,” such as through a zone change or general plan amendment to allow additional
residential development after November 28, 2011. As the Project is located in a section of the
City that was “up-zoned” to allow for additional density capacity, the South Bristol Street Focus
Area, (SBSFA), the Applicant’s request is subject to the AHOCO requirements of production of
affordable housing or payment of in-lieu fees. Pursuant to Sections 41-1903 (Exempt Projects)
and 41-1904 (Options to Satisfy Inclusionary Requirements) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code
(SAMC), the Applicant has indicated intent to select the option to pay in-lieu fees at a rate of $5
per square foot of habitable residential area through the requested development agreement.
The Project will provide in-lieu fees at a rate of five dollars per habitable square foot of
residential area. As a result, City staff estimates the Project could generate approximately 7.1
million dollars in in-lieu fees based on the unit mix and square footage of the proposed 1,583
proposed dwelling units. As set forth under Sections 41-1090 (Inclusionary housing fund) of the
SAMC, the 7.1 million dollars in fees will be deposited in an inclusionary housing fund and will be
used by the City to target production of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income
housing units.
Santa Ana’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the current General Plan
Housing Element cycle (Sixth Cycle), which extends from 2021-2029, includes 3,137 housing
units. This allocation is for housing units to be constructed to support the anticipated growth in
the City over this period. The Project will provide 1,583 units towards total RHNA units, and the
Project’s in-lieu fees can be utilized to target the affordable housing categories.
In short, the City and the Project are not missing an opportunity to encourage affordable
housing as stated by the commenter, but rather the Project’s in-lieu fees will be appropriately be
allocated towards the City’s RHNA targets for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income
housing needs. As the commenter notes, the “AHOCO encourages new residential developments
to include affordable housing units onsite or offsite \[\] or in-lieu fees…” (Letter, pg. 2.) Here, the
Project elects to encourage housing both on site and through the use of in-lieu fees.
II. The Project is Compatible with Applicable General Plan Policies
City of Santa Ana September 2025
2
55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
As courts have described, no project can completely satisfy every policy stated in a City’s
general plan, and state law does not impose such a requirement. (Naraghi Lakes Neighborhood
Preservation Ass’n v. City of Modesto, (2016) 1 Cal. App. 5th 9, 18 citing Sequoyah Hills
Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Oakland, (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 719-720.) Instead, a Project
should be compatible with, and not frustrate the General Plan’s goals and policies. (Id.)
The Project’s Specific Plan includes an Appendix B which details the Project’s consistency
and compatibility with the City’s General Plan. The commenter is referred to this appendix for a
full understanding of the Project’s compatibility with the City’s General Plan.
To the extent the commenter suggests the Project is not compatible with the General Plan
because the Project elects to use in-lieu fees, such a suggestion is inconsistent with the purpose
of the City’s AHOCO. As described above, the AHOCO applies to housing projects proposing five
or more units and that are located in certain areas where additional residential development is
contemplated. The AHOCO establishes standards and procedures to encourage the development
of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. As discussed
above, one of the procedures is paying in-lieu fees, the proceeds of which will contribute towards
affordable housing. Put simply, the payment of in-lieu fees helps the City progress towards its
goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing. Thus, the Project, as proposed, is
compatible with the affordable and diverse housing goals noted in the commenter’s Letter.
Similarly, the Project’s proposed 1,583 units and provision of approximately $7.1 million in in-lieu
fees are compatible with the housing development goals of the 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy, which are also described in the
commenter’s Letter.
III. The Project’s SEIR appropriately studied the Project as contemplated by the
Proposed Specific Plan
The Project consists of a 17.2 acre mixed-use urban village. The Project would permit up
to 1,583 residential units, 80,000 square feet of commercial space, 300,000 square feet of office
space, and 13.8 acres of public and private outdoor and recreation space (of which 7.5 acres will
be publicly accessible open space) through implementation of a Specific Plan. Regardless of any
prior zoning for the Property or adjacent lands, the Specific Plan defines permissible and
conditionally permissible uses in the Specific Plan area. There is no requirement for a “vested
right” to a specific use as the commenter alludes to. As noted in the Specific Plan, a variety of
commercial uses, including a hotel use, are permitted.
The Project’s environmental review studied the impacts of the Specific Plan’s commercial
uses. The Project’s Supplemental Environmental Impact (“SEIR”) conservatively studied the
potential full buildout of the Project with intensive uses. This analysis included the 80,000 sf of
commercial space, which was studied using more intensive permitted commercial uses. The
80,000 sf of commercial space was assumed to include high traffic retail and dining akin to a
regional shopping center. These uses have higher intensity levels than hotel uses and generate
approximately twice as many trips per 1,000 sf compared with a hotel use. Given hotel uses are
significantly less intense when compared with high-turnover retail and restaurant uses, impacts
from a hotel are inherently captured in the environmental analysis as a less intensive use than
what was studied.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
3
55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Thus, impacts related to air quality and transportation uses (including vehicle miles
travelled and a transportation demand management (“TDM”) plan)—as studied in the SEIR—
reflect potentially more impactful uses than a hotel. As a result, the commenter’s claim that the
SEIR did not include the appropriate analysis is inapposite. By studying the maximum buildout,
the SEIR inherently studies the potential environmental impacts of less intense uses such as
hotel. The SEIR studied feasible mitigation to reduce potential environmental impacts relating to
air quality, transportation, and other subjects. With respect to transportation impacts and the
commenter’s suggestions for additional strategies and mitigation measures, the SEIR found that
transportation impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, a TDM plan is not a mitigation
measure required by the environmental analysis. Thus, requiring additional performance metrics
as suggested by the commenter is not a CEQA issue. However, the City will take into
consideration these additional strategies that the commenter suggests. Given that the SEIR
studied potential impacts of the potential maximum buildout, the proposed mitigation provided in
the SEIR is appropriate.
The City notes that the Specific Plan includes an Administration and Implementation
Chapter which details the additional future review of any development with the Specific Plan area.
Pursuant to this Chapter, any future development project must obtain approval of a Development
Project Plan Review. (See Specific Plan, § 6.3.3.) Thus, to the extent a hotel is included in the
buildout of the Project’s commercial uses, that use will be subject to further City review during the
Development Project Plan Review process.
IV. A Hotel Use is Consistent with the Property’s General Plan Land Use Designation
As described above, the proposed Specific Plan defines permissible uses within the
Specific Plan area. Under the Specific Plan, hotel uses are permitted by right or subject to
conditional approval depending on the number of other uses with onsite alcohol sales already
permitted. (See Specific Plan Table 4-1.) The Specific Plan’s use mix is consistent with the City’s
General Plan. Under the General Plan Land Use Plan, the Property is designated as District
Center – High (DC-5), which allows a mix of uses consistent with new urban-scale development.
Uses include residential, retail, commercial, office, and entertainment uses. Taken together, the
proposed Specific Plan would amend the City’s zoning code to allow hotel uses on the Property
consistent with the mixed-use urban development contemplated by the General Plan.
The City’s diverse and varied mix of urban and suburban environments allow for many
land use types and use intensities. As shown in the General Plan Land Use Plan, the pattern and
distribution of land uses differ depending on the character of the surrounding environment. As a
result, the commenter’s review of land uses and hotel uses in other areas of the City is not relevant
to the Project or the required findings that the City considers when making a determination on the
Project.
Even so, the commenter’s review provides support for an opposite conclusion – there is
precedent for hotels permitted “by right” in many other areas of the City. Indeed, the commenter
provides an analysis of the City’s zoning code, Special Districts (“SD”), and Specific Plans in an
effort to show that a hotel use is unwarranted on the Property. However, as the commenter points
out, hotel uses has been permitted in other SDs and Specific Plan areas dating back to 1977 and
as recently as the 2019 Main Place Specific Plan and 2024 Related Bristol Specific Plan. (See
Letter, pg. 15-16.)
City of Santa Ana September 2025
4
55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This document provides responses to environmental-related comments in a series of nearly
identical comment letters that the City of Santa Ana received from the following individuals in
advance of the City Council’s consideration of the proposed Village Santa Ana Specific Plan
Project (Project):
Gabrielle Ridley
Damaris Solis
Vanessa Chavez
Yuri Lara
Randee Tejeda
Sarah Meza
Nicole Ortega
Cenorino Gomez
Julio Castillo
Ricardo Cárdenas
These comment letters note that hotels would be an allowed use under the proposed Specific
Plan and assert that hotel uses were not evaluated as part of the environmental review for the
project. See the response to the UNITE HERE Local 11 comment letter. In particular, section III
of that response explains that the Project’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
appropriately studied the Project as contemplated by the Proposed Specific Plan.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
1
55394.00067\\44182451.1
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This documentprovides responses to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s
(Kizh Nation) written comments received by the City of Santa Ana in advance of the City Council’s
consideration of the proposed Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project. The letter and specific
comments are numbered for reference purposes.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
1
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
T1: Andrew Salas, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –Kizh Nation,dated
September5, 2025 (4pages)
City of Santa Ana September2025
2
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
City of Santa Ana September2025
3
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
City of Santa Ana September2025
4
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
City of Santa Ana September2025
5
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
Response to ObjectionLetter T1: Andrew Salas, Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians –Kizh Nation, dated September 5, 2025
Response T1-1: Thecommentintroduces the letter on behalf of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation (herein, Kizh Nation) regarding their review of the project Final
Supplemental EIR. The Kizh Nation expresses opposition to the City’s decision to update Tribal
Cultural Resource (TCR) mitigation measures in the Final Supplemental EIR based on a public
comment letter submitted by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes
(herein, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians)As this section is introducing the topics to be discussed
in the comment letter, the commenter is referred to the responses to each detailed comment
below. The commenter’s specific concerns are included in the subsequent Comment Nos. T1-2
through T1-11. Refer to Response Nos. T1-2 through T1-11 for specific responses to such
concerns. No further response is required.
Response T1-2: The comment alleges that the City substituted the views of a non-consulting
entity (Juaneño Band of Mission Indians) in place of consultation with the Kizh Nation.
In compliance with CEQA, the City initiated the Senate Bill (SB) 18 and AB 52 tribal consultation
process on November 18, 2023, when the City transmitted written notification to a list of tribes to
provide the opportunity to consult regarding the proposed project. In accordance with Government
Code Section 65352.3, the contacted tribes included tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the project area and tribes maintained on the Native American Heritage Commission’s
contact list, which included both the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians and the Kizh Nation, as
described in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Under SB
18, once the City’s notification is transmitted, tribes have 90 days to request consultation
(Government Code Section 65352.3(a)(2)). Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days from receipt of the
formal notification to request consultation (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1). On March
8, 2024, the Kizh Nation responded to the City’s notification with a request to consult, which
occurred via email. The result of the consultation process was the incorporation of the Kizh
Nation’s provided mitigation measures, as presented in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Though the
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians did not respond to the City’s invitation to consult under SB 18
or AB 52, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians submitted a comment letter on June 10, 2025 on
the Draft Supplemental EIR requesting mitigation measures be incorporated to provide for
monitoring by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians. This comment letter was submitted during
the public review period for the Draft Supplemental EIR in accordance with CEQA. The Native
American Heritage Commission’s list for the project area includes the Juaneño Band of Mission
Indians as a tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Based on comments
received from the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, as part of the Final Supplemental EIR, the
City added Project-specific MM TCR-4 and MM TCR-5 to provide for monitoring by the Juaneño
Band of Mission Indians. Project-specific MM TCR-6 is also included regarding resource
identification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any recovered resources. These
mitigation measures are in addition to the measures requested by the Kizh Nation and do not
change the substance of the measures requested by Kizh Nation or result in new or substantially
more severe impacts.
Response T1-3: The comment argues that public comments are not a substitute for consultation
and cannot override tribe-specific mitigation measures and also suggests that by incorporating
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians’ mitigation measures, the City ignored its duty to reflect Kizh
Nation consultation outcomes in the Final Supplemental EIR.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
6
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
The City did not ignore Kizh Nation’s consultation outcomes in the Final Supplemental EIR as the
mitigation measures resulting from consultation that were included in the Draft Supplemental EIR
were not overridden in the Final Supplemental EIR. The results of the consultation with the Kizh
Nation remain in place and the agreed to mitigation measures between the City and the Kizh
Nation remain in the Final Supplemental EIR. As stated in Response T1-2, the Juaneño Band of
Mission Indians is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area based on the Native
American Heritage Commission’s list for the project area. Based on comments received from the
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, the City added the additional project-specific mitigation
measures MM TCR-4 through MM TCR-6 to the Final Supplemental EIR.
Response T1-4: The comment suggests the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians did not provide
substantial evidence demonstrating historical or genealogical connection to Santa Ana and the
public comment violates CEQA’s substantial evidence standard. As stated in Response T1-2, the
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
based on the Native American Heritage Commission list. As stated on p. 3-12 of the Final EIR,
the “City’s consultation with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneño
Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes determined tribal cultural resources may
potentially be encountered during ground disturbing construction activities. The potential to
encounter buried prehistoric archaeological sites exists for excavation in undisturbed soils.
Therefore, GPU PEIR MM CUL-6 and Project-specific MMs TCR-1 through TCR-6 are proposed
for implementation to require Native American monitoring during any ground disturbing activities
on the project site and to avoid potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be unearthed
from project construction activities.”
Response T1-5: The comment suggests the individual who commented on behalf of the Juaneño
Band of Mission Indians consistently provides late responses or neglects to engage in timely
consultation as required by AB 52 because the individual cannot provide substantial evidence
demonstrating cultural affiliation or direct lineal connection to the geographic area or project site
and uses the public comment period to avoid the requirements of AB 52. The comment provides
background and expresses the commenter’s opinions and potentially past experience. No further
response is required.
Response T1-6: The comment suggests the City breached confidentiality and violated the Kizh
Nation’s sovereign rights by incorporating non-affiliated parties into the mitigation framework
which need to be feasible, enforceable, and specifically tailored to reduce significant impacts. The
comment further suggests the mitigation suggested by the non-affiliated commenters fail the
standard.
As reflected in Chapter 3 Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR of the Final Supplemental EIR,
the Kizh Nation’s recommended mitigation measures do not incorporate other parties or state any
confidential information. Confidentiality was not breached as the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
commented directly on the information provided in the Draft Supplemental EIR, which did not
include any information regarding the location, description, or use of sacred sites, cultural
practices, or other tribal cultural resources,. Additionally, as stated in Response T1-2, the Juaneño
Band of Mission Indians submitted a comment letter on June 10, 2025 on the Draft Supplemental
EIR requesting mitigation measures be incorporated to provide for monitoring by the Juaneño
Band of Mission Indians. The Native American Heritage Commission’s list for the project area
includes the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians as a tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the project area. Therefore, project-specific mitigation measures MM TCR-4 through MM TCR-6
were added to the Final Supplemental EIR. Project-specific MM TCR-4 and MM TCR-5 provide
City of Santa Ana September 2025
7
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
for monitoring by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians and Project-specific MM TCR-6 is also
included regarding resource identification, dispute resolution, and final disposition of any
recovered resources.
Response T1-7: The comment argues that pursuant to PRC Section 21082.3(c)(1), any
information shared by tribes during consultation regarding sacred sites, locations, or cultural
practices must remain confidential. The comment further claims that disclosed protected
information was unlawfully shared and merged with the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians.
As reflected in the Draft Supplemental EIR, the City properly contained TCR mitigation measures
provided by the Kizh Nation and has kept all potential information pertaining to sacred sites,
locations, or cultural practices confidential. No confidential information has been shared publicly
or with other parties. As stated in Response T1-6, confidentiality was not breached as the Juaneño
Band of Mission Indians commented directly on the information provided in the Draft
Supplemental EIR.
Response T1-8: The comment suggests the City neglects PRC Section 21084.3(a) and fails to
avoid or minimize impacts by relying on third-party comments and failing to implement Kizh
Nation’s avoidance-first measures. As stated in Response T1-2, the result of the consultation
process with Kizh Nation was the incorporation of the Kizh Nation’s provided mitigation measures,
as presented in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Additionally, the Native American Heritage
Commission’s list for the project area includes the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians as a tribe
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Therefore, pursuant to PRC Section
21084.3(a), which states public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal
cultural resources, the City is including Project-specific mitigation measures MM TCR-1 through
MM TCR-6 which provide measures for monitoring, resource identification, dispute resolution,
and final disposition of any recovered resources.
Response T1-9: The comment claims that inclusion of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
mitigation measures dilutes and disrupts tribe-specific mitigation required under AB 52; causes
direct damage to ancestral sites and sacred areas by allowing unqualified entities to dictate
treatment standards, and exposes the City to legal liability for failing to protect sensitive resources
under CEQA.
The City is acting in good faith as the lead agency to include mitigation measures that are the
most protective of tribal cultural resources. As stated in Response T1-2, the result of the
consultation process with Kizh Nation was the incorporation of the Kizh Nation’s provided
mitigation measures, as presented in the Draft Supplemental EIR. Additionally, The Native
American Heritage Commission’s list for the project area includes the Juaneño Band of Mission
Indians as a tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Therefore, pursuant to
PRC Section 21084.3(a), the City is including Project-specific mitigation measures MM TCR-1
through MMTCR-6 which provide measures for monitoring, resource identification, dispute
resolution, and final disposition of any recovered resources.
Response T1-10: The comment provides a summary of alleged violations specific to CEQA and
AB 52. Alleged violations include: failure to initiate meaningful consultation; substituting public
comment for consultation; lack of substantial evidence to support mitigation; combining mitigation
across tribes; confidentiality breach of tribal information; failure to prioritize avoidance of impacts;
generic, non-enforceable mitigation; and late responses and neglect of consultation deadlines.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
8
The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project
With regard to the alleged failure to initiate meaningful consultation, the commenter is referred to
Response T1-2 which summarizes the City’s compliance with the AB 52 and SB 18 tribal
consultation process. With regard to the alleged substituting public comment for consultation and
combining mitigation across tribes, the commenter is referred to Response T1-3 which discusses
the incorporation of the comment letter received. For the alleged lack of substantial evidence to
support mitigation, the commenter is referred to Response T1-4. For the alleged confidentiality
breach of tribal information, the failure to prioritize avoidance of impacts and the use of generic,
non-enforceable mitigation, the commenter is referred to Response T1-6. For the alleged late
responses and neglect of consultation deadlines, the commenter is referred to Response T1-5.
Response T1-11: The comment expresses the Kizh Nation’s demands the City reinstate all Kizh
Nation mitigation measures as presented during consultation; removal all language originating
from non-consulting entities; resume government-to-government consultation with the Kizh
Nation within 10 days; adopt enforceable, tribe-specific mitigation measures that prioritize
avoidance; and issue a corrective notice reaffirming the City’s legal obligations under CEQA and
AB 52. Government-to-government consultation with the Kizh Nation has concluded, and the City
is acting in good faith as the lead agency to include mitigation measures that are the most
protective of tribal cultural resources. The commenter is referred to Response Nos. T-2 and T-3.
Response T1-12: The comment concludes the objection letter and reiterates the Kizh Nation’s
concerns with the tribal consultation and public comment process under CEQA and AB52. The
commenter is referred to the responses to each detailed comment above. The commenter’s
specific concerns are included in the subsequent Comment Nos. T1-2 through T1-11. Refer to
Response Nos. T1-2 through T1-11 for specific responses to such concerns. No further response
is required.
City of Santa Ana September 2025
9