HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 34 - Public Hearing - Approve Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and Approve One Incentive/Concession and Two Waivers or Reductions of Development Standards for the Think Together Property Located at 2101 East Fourth Street Planning and Building Agency
. ,. www.santa-ana.gov/pb
� Item # 34
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Appeal Application No. 2026-01 appealing the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and approve one
incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to
State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01,
for the Think Together Project located at 2101 East Fourth Street
AGENDA TITLE
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 - Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to
Approve Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and Approve One Incentive/Concession and Two
Waivers or Reductions of Development Standards for the Think Together Property
Located at 2101 East Fourth Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application No. 2026-01, thereby upholding the
Planning Commission's approval of a resolution to approve Site Plan Review No. 2026-
01 and one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development
standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus
Agreement No. 2026-01, to facilitate the construction of a seven-story mixed-use
development consisting of 274 residential units, including 14 affordable units for
extremely low-income households, and approximately 20,714 square feet of ground-floor
commercial space for the property located at 2101 East Fourth Street (APN:400-041-03).
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTAANA DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2026-01, THEREBY
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 2026-01 AND ONE INCENTIVE/CONCESSION AND TWO WAIVERS OR
REDUCTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY
BONUS LAW, TO BE MEMORIALIZED IN DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT NO. 2026-
01, BASED ON FINDINGS, INCLUDING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT
WAS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA SECTION 15168, FOR A SEVEN STORY MIXED-USE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 274 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 EAST FOURTH STREET (APN: 400-041-03)
GOVERNMENT CODE &84308 APPLIES: Yes
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Executive Summary
Randy Barth with Think Together, a California nonprofit corporation ("Applicant" and
"Owner"), represented by Christine Saunders (application-listed contact person), received
Planning Commission approval of Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2026-01 and approval of
one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards
pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement
(DBA) No. 2026-01, to facilitate redevelopment of an existing office campus located at
2101 East Fourth Street within the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU). The
approved Project consists of demolition of two existing office buildings and construction
of a seven-story mixed-use development containing 274 residential units, including 14
affordable units reserved for extremely low-income households, and approximately
20,714 square feet of ground-floor commercial space.
On May 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and
approved Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 after finding the Project consistent with the
General Plan, the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU), applicable provisions of
State Density Bonus Law, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Planning Commission also adopted a resolution approving one incentive/concession and
two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus
Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01, as conditioned.
Staff has reviewed the appeal and determined that the Planning Commission's decisions
are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and comply with the
Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), State Density Bonus Law, and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For the reasons discussed in this report, staff
recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its approval of one
incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant
to State Density Bonus Law, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01.
Planning Commission Action and Background
On May 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the proposed Project. Following staff's presentation, public testimony, and
Planning Commission deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 5:0:2
(Commissioners Oliva and Benninger absent) to adopt a resolution approving Site Plan
Review (SPR) No. 2026-01, based on the required findings, and a separate resolution
approving one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development
standards, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) No. 2026-01, subject to
conditions of approval. Pursuant to Section 41-1602(d) of the SAMC, final approval of the
Density Bonus Agreement is under the jurisdiction of the City Council.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 3
Appeal Application
On June 3, 2026, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("Appellant")
timely filed Appeal Application No. 2026-01 challenging the Planning Commission's
approval of SPR No. 2026-01 and the approval of the concession and waivers or
reductions of development standards memorialized in DBA No. 2026-01, without any
substantiating evidence or supportive documentation. Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the
SAMC, the City Council is authorized to hear appeals of Planning Commission decisions
and, following a duly noticed public hearing, may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the
decision, and may make any additional determinations it deems appropriate within the
limitations imposed by the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
Should the City Council deny the appeal, the Planning Commission's approval of the
requested entitlements would remain, and the DBA would be brought forward to the City
Council as a consent item at the next regularly-scheduled meeting. Conversely, should
the City Council uphold the appeal, the Planning Commission's approval of the requested
entitlements would be voided, and no separate City Council consideration of a DBA would
be necessary.
Background and Context
The project site is located at 2101 East Fourth Street within the Metro East Mixed-Use
Overlay Zone (MEMU) and is currently developed with two existing office buildings and
associated surface parking. The Applicant proposes redevelopment of the site with a mixed-
use residential development utilizing the development standards established for the Village
Center District of the MEMU.
A detailed description of the Project, applicable development standards, and Planning
Commission findings is contained in the May 28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report
(Exhibit 5), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Table 1: Project and Location Information
Item Information
Project Address and Council Ward 2101 East Fourth Street—Ward 3
Nearest Intersection Fourth Street and Parkcenter Drive
General Plan Designation District Center— Medium High (DC—3)
Zoning Designation Professional (P); Village Center District (VCD)within the Metro
East Mixed Use Overly Zone MEMU
North Office
Surrounding Land Uses East Office
South Office
West Medical Office and Trade School
Property Size 129,767 square feet 2.98 acres
Existing Site Development Two 14,400-s uare-foot office buildings
Use Permissions Mixed-Use round floor commercial and residential
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 4
Item Information
Uses Article XVI.I (Density Bonus) and Village Center
Zoning Code Sections Affected District within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay
Zone MEMU
Project Description
The proposed Project involves redevelopment of an existing office campus with the
demolition of two existing office buildings and associated surface parking and construction
of a new seven-story mixed-use development. The Project includes 274 residential dwelling
units, of which 14 units (5%) will be reserved for extremely low-income households in
accordance with State Density Bonus Law. The development also includes approximately
20,714 square feet of ground-floor commercial space intended to support neighborhood-
serving retail, dining, and service uses consistent with the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay
Zone (MEMU). The Project further includes structured parking, private and common open
space amenities, publicly accessible open space, and frontage improvements along East
Fourth Street and Parkcenter Drive. A detailed description of the Project, architectural plans,
elevations, floor plans, and supporting exhibits were considered by the Planning
Commission and are incorporated herein by reference through the May 28, 2026, Planning
Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5).
The Project was reviewed for consistency with the applicable development standards of the
Village Center District within the MEMU. As shown in Table 2 below, the Project complies
with the majority of applicable development standards. The Applicant requested one
incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to
State Density Bonus Law related to building setbacks, building height, and publicly
accessible open space. The Planning Commission approved the requested
incentive/concession and waivers or reductions of development standards, as memorialized
in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01, as conditioned.
Table 2: Development Standards
Development Standards MEMU
Standard Required/Allowed Provided
Density 90 du/ac 92 du/ac— density bonus
request d
Lot Size 30,000 square feet 125,952 square feet(2.89
acres
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.00 FAR 2.7 FAR
Up to 10 stories for a depth of 150 7 stories throughout the entire
Building Height feet from the street and 6 stories site— waiver requested
thereafter
Minimum Floor Heights 9-15 feet 12' round; 10'-l" upper
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 5
Development Standards MEMO
Standard Required/Allowed Provided
• Adjacent to Park Center
Drive: 14.25 feet—
Adjacent to Public ROW or Street: incentive%oncession
10 feet (max.) requested
• Adjacent to Fourth Street
Setbacks 5 feet
Adjacent to parking: 7 feet(min.) Adjacent to parking: 10 feet
Building to building: 15 feet (min.) Building to building: 18 feet
Frontage Type Front Porch, Stoop, Forecourt, Shop Shopfront and Forecourt
Front, Gallery, or Arcade
Publicly Accessible Open 10% of the gross site area 10,666 square feet(8%)—
Space 12,977 square feet waiver requested
• 90 square feet per unit(24,660
square feet) 0 Balconies = 15,892
• Five-percent (5%)of the square square feet
footage uses for nonresidential • Amenities = 5,029 square
uses (7,900 square feet on the feet
Private/Common Open first floor and 12,814 square feet • Roof Deck = 1,047
Space on the second floor for a total of square feet
20,714 square feet of 0 Courtyard = 16,948
nonresidential uses requires square feet
1,036 square feet of • Total private/common
private/common open space) open space = 38,916
• Total required: 25,696 square square feet
feet
State Density Bonus Requirement
1 bedroom = 1 space
2 bedroom = 1.5 spaces
Parking Spaces 3 bedroom = 1.5 spaces 439 parking spaces
Total Requirement: 359 spaces
MEMU Requirement: 2.25 per unit
274 units x 2.25 ratio = 617 spaces
Analysis of Appeal
Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, any interested party may appeal a decision of
the Planning Commission to the City Council. On June 3, 2026, Supporters Alliance for
Environmental Responsibility ("Appellant") timely filed Appeal Application No. 2026-01
challenging the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and
its approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development
standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, as memorialized in Density Bonus
Agreement No. 2026-01.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 6
The appeal application (Exhibit 1) consists of a brief narrative asserting that the Planning
Commission improperly relied on the certified environmental documents for the Project.
The appeal does not identify any specific factual or legal error committed by the Planning
Commission, cite any contrary technical evidence or expert analysis, or provide
substantial evidence demonstrating that additional environmental review is required
under CEQA. Instead, the appeal presents generalized conclusions regarding the
adequacy of the City's environmental review. Staff has reviewed each assertion raised in
the appeal and concludes that the Planning Commission's decision is fully supported by
substantial evidence contained in the administrative record. The appeal application
contains the following assertions:
1. The Planning Commission erred in approving the Project and relying on CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168 and the certified 2007 MEMU Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and 2018 Subsequent EIR;
2. The Project will result in new environmental impacts unique to the Project that were
not analyzed in the previously certified environmental documents;
3. Because the certified environmental documents identified significant and
unavoidable impacts, the Project requires preparation of a project-specific
Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
4. The Planning Commission should have required preparation of a project-specific
EIR prior to approving the Project.
Response to Appeal Assertions
1. Assertion: The Planning Commission erred in approving the Project and relying on
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and
2018 Subsequent EIR.
The appellant has not submitted any additional evidence or information to
substantiate that the Planning Commission erred in its decision-making. Staff has
reviewed the issues raised in the appeal and concludes that the Appellant's
assertions are not supported by the administrative record. The proposed Project is
consistent with the land use assumptions, development intensity, and
environmental analysis evaluated in the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and
2018 Subsequent EIR. The Project site is located within the MEMU Overlay Zone
and proposes the type of mixed-use residential development contemplated by the
plan and analyzed in the previously certified environmental documents.
2. Assertion: There are new environmental impacts unique to the project that were
not analyzed in the 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2018
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that must be analyzed in a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or EIR.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 7
In order to evaluate the appropriate level of environmental review, the Applicant
prepared a CEQA Consistency Analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15168. The analysis evaluated whether the Project would result in new
significant environmental impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously
identified impacts, or otherwise require preparation of subsequent or supplemental
environmental review. The Applicant's CEQA Consistency Analysis was peer
reviewed by City staff. Based on that review and the administrative record, the City
concluded that the Project would not result in new significant environmental
effects, substantially more severe impacts than those previously evaluated, or any
substantial changes to the Project, surrounding circumstances, or available
information that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
The Appellant relies on an unsubstantiated assertion without offering any submittal
of new or different evidence, technical studies, or expert analysis to demonstrate
that unique or unexamined site-specific impacts exist. Under CEQA, mere
speculation or unbacked claims do not constitute substantial evidence, nor do they
trigger the legal requirement for a project-specific EIR.
3. Assertion: The Project relies on a previous EIR with significant and unavoidable
impacts, and, therefore, requires its own EIR and statement of overriding
considerations prior to approval.
The existence of previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts in the
certified MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR does not, by itself, require
preparation of a project-specific EIR for every subsequent development within the
MEMU Overlay Zone. Rather, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly
authorizes reliance on a certified Program EIR for later activities that are within the
scope of the program, provided the lead agency determines that no subsequent or
supplemental environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section
15162. Here, the Project falls within the scope of development previously
evaluated under the certified environmental documents, and no new significant
environmental impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified.
Additionally, all applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the certified
MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR remain applicable to the Project
and will continue to be implemented through the City's adopted Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15168(c)(3).
4. Assertion: We [the Appellant] therefore request that the Planning Commission
prepare a project-specific EIR prior to any approvals.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 8
CEQA does not require preparation of a project-specific EIR simply because an
appellant disagrees with the Planning Commission's determination. Rather, the
Planning Commission was required to determine whether the Project was within
the scope of the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR
and whether any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review were present. Based
on the CEQA Consistency Analysis, the administrative record, and the evidence
before it, the Planning Commission determined that no subsequent or
supplemental environmental review was required and properly approved the
Project in reliance on CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The appeal presents no
substantial evidence demonstrating that this determination was erroneous.
For the reasons discussed above, the administrative record demonstrates that the
Planning Commission properly relied upon the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and
2018 Subsequent EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168.
The appeal identifies no factual or legal error in the Planning Commission's decision and
provides no substantial evidence demonstrating that subsequent or supplemental
environmental review is required under CEQA. Accordingly, staff recommends that the
City Council deny Appeal No. 2026-01 and uphold the Planning Commission's approval
of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its approval of one incentive/concession and two
waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law,
as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01.
Standard of Review
The City Council's role in considering an appeal is to determine whether the Planning
Commission's decisions should be affirmed, modified, or reversed based on the
administrative record and any evidence presented during the appeal. In conducting its
review, the City Council considers whether the Planning Commission's findings are
supported by substantial evidence and whether the decisions were made in accordance
with applicable provisions of the SAMC, State Density Bonus Law, and CEQA, as
applicable.
The Planning Commission's findings supporting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-
01 and its approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of
development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law are contained in the May
28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report and accompanying resolutions (Exhibit 5),
which are incorporated herein by reference.
Public Notification and Community Outreach
Project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with applicable
City and State requirements for both the Planning Commission public hearing and the
City Council appeal hearing, as required by Section 41-645 of the SAMC. Copies of the
public notices, including the 2,000-foot notification radius maps and site postings, are
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 9
provided in Exhibit 15 of the Planning Commission Staff Report and the hyperlinked
exhibits included as Exhibit 5 to this staff report.
In addition to the required public noticing, the Applicant also held two community meetings
in compliance with the City's Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3040). The first
meeting was held on October 15, 2024. Approximately 20 members of the community
were in attendance and posed questions related to the unit count, unit type, parking
availability, finishes on the interior, pricing, affordable units, and when the units would be
available for sale. No issues of concern were raised regarding the proposed development.
The second meeting was held on September 4, 2024. Five members of the community
were in attendance and posed questions related to the affordable housing units and when
they would become available, but raised no issues related to the development. Materials
from both meetings are posted to the Project's City webpage (Exhibit 13 of the Planning
Commission Staff Report and Exhibits hyperlinked as Exhibit 5).
In addition, staff contacted the identified representatives for the Saddleback View,
Maybury Park, Lyon Street, and Zoo District neighborhoods to notify them of the Project
and the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. No concerns were raised
from the neighborhood associations leading up to the Planning Commission hearing.
Additionally, at the time this report was prepared, staff did not receive any comments or
concerns regarding the proposed development.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The denial of Appeal Application No. 2026-01 would result in upholding the Planning
Commission's May 28, 2026, approval of the Project.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines,
the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168 (Program EIR). The Project is within the scope of the certified 2007 Metro
East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) Program Environmental Impact Report (Program
EIR) and the certified 2018 MEMU Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(Subsequent EIR), which previously evaluated the environmental effects associated with
development within the MEMU Overlay Zone.
To evaluate the appropriate level of environmental review, the Applicant prepared a
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 Consistency Memorandum with support from Ganddini
Group, Inc., the Applicant's environmental consultant. The Consistency Memorandum
evaluated whether the Project would result in new significant environmental impacts,
substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, or otherwise require
additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and
15168. The Consistency Memorandum was reviewed by City staff, who independently
evaluated the analysis and determined that the Project would not result in new significant
environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 — Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street
August 4, 2026
Page 10
impacts. City staff further determined that there have been no substantial changes to the
Project, the surrounding circumstances, or the information available that would require
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Furthermore, all applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the certified MEMU
Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR remain applicable to the Project and will continue
to be implemented through the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3). Accordingly, denial of the appeal
would uphold the Planning Commission's determination that no additional environmental
review is required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. Therefore, a
Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2025-01, will be filed for the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBITS
1. Appeal Application No. 2026-01.
2. Resolution Denying Appeal Application No. 2026-01
3. Architectural Plan Set
4. Project Renderings
5. May 28, 2026 — Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (Hyperlink)
Submitted By: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Executive Director of Planning and Building
Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nunez, City Manager
Planning and Building Agency
Planning Division
I 20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
I I Santa Ana, CA 92702
(714) 647-5804 APPEAL APPLICATION
I. OWNER/APPLICANT
Applicant Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
Full name of Person, Firm,or Corporation ( 510) 836-4200
1939 Harrison Street,Suite 150 Oakland,CA 94512
Mailing Address Area Code Phone No.
Legal Owner Name: Think Together,a California nonprofit corporation.
Legal Owner Address: 2101 East Fourth Street, Suite 200B
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone No.: (714) 343-3807 ( ) Fax: ( )
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use
Office Campus Metro-East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone District Center-Mediurn High(DC-3)
Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation
Location 2101 East Fourth Street Santa Ana,CA 92705 N Parkcenter Drive
Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
III. REASON FOR REQUEST
In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or
requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach
additional comments to the back of this application.)
The Planning Commission erred in approving the project and forgoing further environmental review under
Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")by claiming that the project falls within
the scope of the previously certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR(SCH No. 2006031041)and 2018 Subsequent
EIR.There are new environmental impacts unique to the project that were not analyzed in the 2007 EIR and the 2018 SEIR
that must be analyzed in an MND or EIR. The Project relies on a previous EIR with significant and
unavoidable impacts, and, therefore, requires its own EIR and statement of overriding considerations
prior to approval.We therefore request that the Planning Commission prepare a project-specific EIR prior to any approvals.
Applicant's Signature: Date: 6/3/2026
APPEAL APPLICATION NO.
cm\cntr-frm\appeal
5/00
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. An appeal application form (Exhibit 1).
2. A letter stating the nature of the appeal (in lieu of the space provided on the appeal form).
3. The application fee.
4. Any other pertinent information that the application warrants.
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2026-
01, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.
2026-01 AND ONE INCENTIVE/CONCESSION AND TWO
WAIVERS OR REDUCTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY BONUS
LAW, TO BE MEMORIALIZED IN DENSITY BONUS
AGREEMENT NO. 2026-01, BASED ON FINDINGS,
INCLUDING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT
WAS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA SECTION 15168, FOR A
SEVEN STORY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF 274 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 EAST FOURTH STREET
(APN: 400-041-03)
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. Randy Barth with Think Together, a California nonprofit corporation
("Applicant" and "Owner"), represented by Christine Saunders (application-
listed contact person), applied for, submitted, and sought approval of Site
Plan Review No. 2026-01 (SPR-2026-01) and Density Bonus Application
No. 2026-01 (DBA-2026-01) to facilitate the redevelopment of the property
located at 2101 East Fourth Street with a seven-story mixed-use
development consisting of 274 residential dwelling units, including 14
affordable units reserved for extremely low-income households,
approximately 20,714 square feet of ground-floor commercial space,
associated parking, open space, and related site improvements ("Project").
As part of the application, the Applicant also requested approval of one
incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development
standards pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, to be
memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01.
B. The Project site is located within the Professional (P) zoning district, has a
General Plan land use designation of District Center — Medium High (DC-
3), and is within the Village Center District (VCD) of the Metro East Mixed-
Use Overlay Zone ("MEMU").
C. On May 28, 2026, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning
Commission, after considering all testimony, written and oral, approved Site
Plan Review SPR No. 2026-01 and approved the requested
incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development
standards pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, based
on its determination that the Project was exempt from CEQA under Section
15168.
D. On June 3, 2026, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
("Appellant") timely filed Appeal Application No. 2026-01 appealing the
Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its
approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of
development standards under State Density Bonus Law.
E. The Appellant asserts that additional environmental review is required and
that the Project cannot rely upon the previously certified Metro East Mixed-
Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) environmental documents pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines and be exempt from further review under Section 15168
(Program EIR).
F. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 authorizes reliance on a certified Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for later activities that are within the
scope of the program, provided no conditions requiring subsequent or
supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, are present.
G. Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC"),
when considering an appeal, the City Council may, after public hearing,
affirm, reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make any
additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations
imposed by Chapter 41.
H. On August 4, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on Appeal Application No. 2026-01 and considered the entire
administrative record, including the Appeal application, the Planning
Commission Staff Report and decision, the City Council Staff Report, and
all written and oral testimony.
I. After independently reviewing the administrative record, the City Council
finds that the Appeal does not identify any factual or legal error in the
Planning Commission's decision or present substantial new evidence
requiring reversal or modification of the Planning Commission's approval.
The City Council further finds that the Planning Commission's approval is
supported by substantial evidence and complies with the State and local
law including, including, but not limited to, the Santa Ana Municipal Code,
State Density Bonus Law, and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 2. The denial of Appeal Application No. 2026-01 results in upholding the
Planning Commission's May 28, 2026, approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its
approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development
standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, including the determination that,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, the
proposed Project is exempt from further environmental review under Section 15168
(Program EIR). This exemption applies when a previously certified Program
Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) has adequately analyzed the environmental
effects of an activity, and no new significant impacts would result from the proposed
Project. If the proposed Project remains within the scope of the Program EIR and does
not require a subsequent Environmental Impact Report(EIR), no additional environmental
documentation is required.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines,
the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168 (Program EIR). The Project is within the scope of the certified 2007 Metro
East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) Program Environmental Impact Report (Program
EIR) and the certified 2018 MEMU Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(Subsequent EIR), which previously evaluated the environmental effects associated with
development within the MEMU Overlay Zone.
To evaluate the appropriate level of environmental review, the Applicant prepared a
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 Consistency Memorandum with support from Ganddini
Group, Inc., the Applicant's environmental consultant. The Consistency Memorandum
evaluated whether the Project would result in new significant environmental impacts,
substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, or otherwise require
additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and
15168. The Consistency Memorandum was reviewed by City staff, who independently
evaluated the analysis and determined that the Project would not result in new significant
environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified
impacts. City staff further determined that there have been no substantial changes to the
Project, the surrounding circumstances, or the information available that would require
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Furthermore, all applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the certified MEMU
Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR remain applicable to the Project and will continue
to be implemented through the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3). Accordingly, denial of the appeal
would uphold the Planning Commission's determination that no additional environmental
review is required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. Therefore, a
Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2025-01, will be filed for the Project.
Section 3. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, authorized
volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands,
lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether legal,
equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such
other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought
against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or
concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act,
California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map
Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local
constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve
the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City
for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of
the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall
cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
Section 4. After conducting a duly noticed public hearing and considering the entire
administrative record, the City Council hereby denies Appeal Application No. 2026-01 and
upholds the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and one
incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65915, subject to the conditions of approval contained
in Exhibit A to Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 of the May 28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff
Report. This action is based upon the evidence contained in the administrative record,
including, but not limited to, the August 4, 2026, City Council Staff Report and exhibits
attached thereto, the May 28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report and accompanying
exhibits, the appeal application, and all written and oral testimony received by the City
Council, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
[Intentionally Left Blank]
ADOPTED this 41h day of August, 2026.
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
LABy:_
Melissa M. Crosthwaite
Senior Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No.
2026- to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana on , 2026.
Date:
Jennifer L. Hall
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Z
O A
�w
LL
w
w i U N¢ OZN¢a0 a0
FJij�uO UwF� 0 ..................
i
S t p O O pW�af�FnO wi
z I � N N sSw�w has a=
J 1 � � � � I I L❑J a�aS�LLaGo a
.................
a -Ilk' - a —
.-�° —
h
O� V
PARKCENTER DR. --
t--- --- --------------t— — --- ---�----
10
7
I-�
1 n—ssvd
I ' H
L °-
� I
I ,
c 1
- I w
r o_oa
_0Ja
^om? 12
,o
W-
Z
w
� — U
U e ca z
L � a
r C:
iJ "r I ; ' 'i
I s
W
,_
QC
0
00
..................
S �
a C ¢
a
1c)
o ��,t y, -- � i • o
- 88e x
�J4
s
-
_e gygp
i t 4 C
.NM Z
q 11
� iARoi¢ W
3 7 x ss q - -
s s s 6 GG a ()
o .° g =z WT iz as ss o lass a
a u og
P— a
..................
C
L
4.
��11
a N N„
0
b Q R
w m n
e ..................
_ a
s f
Z W
° 0�w zaW
0
w ��o arc
V n
__________ 7 Z $
r_ lti------------------- it Q �°
I m•41/2• 167 r 3a'-a' I a —
LL
o
I J
W —
J
1
I
0 /T a
0 0
ELEC.RM.
O 1
PASS TMRU< i. _ y
X,
III 111 �� a awe
III !!I FF 1
III _ III P u l+ec R . -
III !!l %}
� I
1!I z 1
i
Cs W
1 Fa, Y
w 1
s<
I IT
� I
_ - -- III 1iil JLL 1
0
z
Wo W o o 1 ,
W
- --- -- --------
r-1
u
-- — - — — — — — — — — -- — ca z
- - -- J 2 a
— - — _ ---
-- - - --- - --o --- ---- ----- ---- -� z
-- z
-- - - "" --- -�- - - -ter- a
-----------— "
.................
— — — _ — _ — —_
O
4�
889,1111
g M
i;m om Q or
W m
o
o a
z
C a i 0 ..................
C
2 e i o 06
w 1 how w
o =�o
w g
g a—
a —
----------------------------------------� _$
LL
1 31'-0y2'
7-4
Z.
I
2 , I §
- �m � I a J
I �
I �
I
I = I
� ; I11 I11
III III
I 111 111 I �
-7771
I a I
m
TIT
r I
_ I
I
I I I
[A�
I I �N
� a 1
I I
TF[lI I
o 0 0 ON o ® , W
z
V W
U
ix
a �
ors z
v
Z
v
c
.c
a✓
►1�,
o
O u o >m
• • w u
C vi v:
Z y y Q 2
w i 2 N
Z y Q
Z N« O 6 Q
LLI • w0 2> Z O w
I^ • >_
V
W
QZ R�
J m
a
------------------------------------------
O S
rLL
i n•-0Ifr yes-r 3e•a• �r-olfr I •o _
I r �
—
1 W
I -
1
o
r 1
�m I
I
I I
I I r
I �
I I
I � I
I
I I
5
� m
I
I �
z I
I
I
I - �
_ I
a
- I
I _ I
�n I
I
6
1p
I F-2L
-L2t: r w
J .. Z
Lf-4---------------
W
U
li
a
r,
c Z
Q
= a
H Z
v
c
� YI �ry
CMps
�m om a >r�
• W d
Zgn
w "mow mow
°LU
5 �_s
a
a
----------------------------------------�
, 31'-01/Y '1S'2' 36'-0' 37-0 i(Y
I I W g
L
Ek
Ez
IL
I Y
1 ,
_ I
I
1 l
11
1 ` I
I <
z
I ,
z
z _ -
1 ' z`. Jz 1
1 - I
LA
iiiiiiiMill
9
kj
I z
1p-
- 19
� a
1 , �
< � m
1 a I
I � I
I ,
- - - - - ET[ITI]
- ■ .f -
I
g W
U
M
a �
as Z
F•. Z
..................
c
t
/18;.m
O �
a R�
s
00
0
..................
Z
❑ g
E_ r3.r L -
T
s �
_ � N LL
I ❑
W
g � x — W
Ix
LL CL u
CO od z
1 1 �
v-A
..................
y
c
L
Q
..................
a
tz
V & D
� O
LL
00 -
t
= C
N
H LO
Z
I
.v,ce
U�
0
W
Z
W
U
Y
ix
a
1 0?5
= a
1 - �C
L
cm
gW
' $o
0
..................
z R m
0
a _
Hong
w
J _
W
■YYffB
■YYa1N
■l al al:fl'
�YYflfl
It ON 219:Il
:I :IN:I :IN:I MIMI
:I :Ilia :Ilia4& ■ 71'
W
■■■SE z
-
a l awl w
U
1
Y
1
ix
1
1
I a
1
ca Z
a
f- a
vN
Z ,
..................
s Z
c
J J
W J
1-Z8 1-.L8
Q R�
0
..................
o --
a _
w
J
w
1 �
i
li
li
li
li
1
Y
- as Ck
■
■
■ s
■ ■I
■ ■w lal Wl -1 Ml w
NEE z
w
e. U
I A :C =C a
. 2
..................
z z
O O
� C
J
W J
W
F N +I
i��1, I
.L-Ze 1-.28
j� a R8
m@
cm
00
L--- A
a
..................
Z R_
0 —
H
U _
uWi
II -
b�
C C
C C C C
C C C C F—
t — —
n r 'j.r
C C C
C C C
6
EE � <
E E L
s � �
3
z�
da
8 ix
o w
u 3g g Z
J LV
---------- ,; �- ---------- _ o Z
a
m u
� IIIIII o CO gIIIIIIII Z
0
.c-za .rze .c-ze
�e �■.
20
USE ME MIS >•= J
Y
IMP ME
�Y
MIS M■ 1% -F;7
mf
• =
• - I
� J
I
�1� � �P1• !s- 7 --tE �-
` >P xrwv ;
Jr
" I e
j I•�,
� I
`If r
�omw„ ! 1 1 1
i
i�
P Jlti;: II
� r
:7i•i-
I I `
�a 1
" 1
�- — �— _•_� '1 .rye'.
L,
r
r.kt =F
r
1
4 i
f'
.a , r
••1 1 1 41
1 1 1
I
0
Q
00
0
ONO �' k
t� -
ii
Mob
Mom LM
1
- 1
_ 1•
W
H
U
Y
all =I i m d a
Ors Z
= a
a
a An
w1fir,
H ~
�} z
V N
>•� �% ■