Item 23 - First One -Year Extension for Site Plan Review No. 2020-03 and Variance No. 2020-06

Home Browse Search

The Appellant's comment letter cites to an outdated and superseded version of Section 41-1902(b)(1). The HOO was amended on September 1, 2020, and the comment letter does not reflect the amended language. While previously, Section 41-1902(b)(1) applied the HOO to any project that exceeded the maximum density permitted by zoning, the recent amendments remove this reference. As amended, the HOO now only applies when a residential project proposes a residential density above the General Plan permitted density. The 4th and Mortimer Mixed -Use Development project is consistent with the General Plan. No General Plan Amendment is required for the Project. The Project seeks only a zone change, on only a portion of the project site. No density allowance above that currently permitted by the site's General Plan designation is proposed. Therefore, the HOO does not apply. III. The Planning Commission did not abuse its discretion and did consider comments submitted by Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of SAFER. The Planning Commission considered Mr. Drury's public comment and received input from the City Attorney and the City's environmental consultant regarding the whether the addendum prepared for the project was the appropriate document. Both the City Attorney and the consultant were confident that no subsequent CEQA analysis was required for the project other than the addendum which was prepared. Again, this was based on the fact that the technical studies evidenced that an EIR Addendum to the previously -certified 2010 EIR was the appropriate CEQA document to evaluate and disclose the project's impacts. Therefore, the Planning Commission did consider Mr. Drury's comments and concerns but agreed with staf's recommendation that the addendum was the appropriate environmental document. Section 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the application, the Planning Commission's decision, and the appeal, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Commission's decision was not made in error, that the Planning Commission's decision was not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Transit Zoning Code Project (SCH NO. 2006071100) and the 2020 4t" and Mortimer Mixed -Use Development EIR Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for Resolution No. 2020-093 Page 4 of 7