75C - PH MORTIMER MIXED USE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Application No. 2020-02, ER No. 2018-13 & AA No. 2020-04 — 4th and Mortimer Mixed -Use Development December 1, 2020 Page 5 Each site has its own unique architectural vernacular defined by scale, facade articulation, roof forms, materials, and detailing. A variety of window dimensions are provided where appropriate while the header/sill trim details vary between both sites. Varied material/color palettes are featured on both buildings, in addition to varied window recesses, and decorative elements. While color palette is varied across both sites, care has been taken to provide a unified look to correspond to the surrounding buildings. Both structures feature durable brick veneer, glass, smooth stucco finishes, metal awnings, and textured blocks/panels. Lastly, the building will feature prominent artwork/murals across both sites. To ensure that the art is reflective of Santa Ana and is a positive cultural impact on the surrounding neighborhood, staff included a condition of approval that requires the applicant to coordinate with the City's Arts and Culture Office and submit a Public Art Plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The development will feature amenities commonly found at other upscale mixed -use developments in the region. These include a large courtyard with a pool, spa, clubroom, fitness room, and landscaping in the center of Site A; a roof terrace on the seventh floor of Site A, overlooking Fourth and French streets; a leasing office and lounge in Site A; a bike locker in Site A; and a ground -floor lobby and resident amenity area in Site B. In addition, the project features private open space/decks for 59 units on Site A and 48 units on Site B. Conditions of approval have been added to ensure the two -block project will be built and managed as a single community and all amenities will be accessible to residents from either site. Analysis of Appeal Pursuant to Section 41-645(a) of the SAMC, appeals can only be made on a decision or requirement made by the Planning Commission. Of the appeal reasons received, the only action taken by the Planning Commission was the action to adopt a resolution approving the addendum to the EIR for the TZC. The subsequent appeal items do not satisfy the requirements of SAMC Section 41-645(a) and should not be considered because: (1) No decision or action was taken by the Planning Commission regarding the HOO requirements because the HOO did not apply to the project; and (2) consideration of a public comment letter received does not constitute decision or requirement taken by the Planning Commission. Nonetheless, staff provides a comprehensive response below on all appeal items received. The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision approving the addendum to the TZC EIR for the 4th and Mortimer Mixed -Use project and provides three main reasons to substantiate the request, including: (1) CEQA compliance; (2) HOO applicability; and (3) Consideration of the Planning Commission regarding public comment letter received: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance a. The appellant states that, "The City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to prepare a project -specific EIR for the project." Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that because the 2010 TZC EIR was a Program and not a Project EIR, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 precludes use of an addendum, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 75C-5