Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-081 - Approving Appeal Applicatiion for Mixed-Use Cabrillo Town CenterRESOLUTION NO. 2023-081 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 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 Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 1 of 9 Mixed Used (MEMO) 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: 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. Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 2 of 9 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 mitigation 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 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 Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 3of9 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. f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 4 of 9 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. 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 can 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 65589.50)(1), when a local agency proposes to disapprove a project, the local agency shall base 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: Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 5 of 9 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 impacts 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, 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. Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 6 of 9 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 measures. Therefore, the identified impacts were considered to meet the definition of specific, adverse impact, as defined in California Government Code Section 65589.50)(1)(A). Moreover, because the impacts were deemed significant and unavoidable, there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 7 of 9 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. ADOPTED this 2111 day of November. 2023. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: kawo- A - %4u�� Jose Montoya Assistant City Attorney n�4� al rie A ezcua or Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 8 of 9 AYES: Councilmembers Amezcua, Bacerra, Hernandez, Pena loza, Vazquez (5) NOES: Councilmembers None (0) ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Lopez, Phan 2 NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers None (0) CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2023-081 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on November 21, 2023. P.- i Resolution No. 2023-081 Page 9 of 9