Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo- Item 34 MEMORANDUM A www.santa-ana.org Honorable Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and To: Members of the City Council Date: August 4, 2026 Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Executive Director From: of Planning and Building Safety PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 34 — 2101 EAST FOURTH STREET (THINK TOGETHER)APPEAL APPLICATION NO.2026-01—RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL Subject: COMMENT LETTERS This memorandum is provided to the City Council in response to public comments received following publication of the staff report for Public Hearing Item No. 34 on the August 4, 2026, City Council agenda. The memorandum provides supplemental responses to issues raised in the additional correspondence submitted prior to the hearing. Staff reviewed the correspondence in its entirety. The letters assert additional legal and technical arguments regarding the City's environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), including issues that overlap with matters previously raised in the appeal. The responses below address the principal substantive environmental issues relevant to the City's CEQA determination. To the extent the correspondence raises issues that have already been addressed in the staff report, appeal response, CEQA Consistency Memorandum, or other documents comprising the administrative record, those responses are incorporated herein by reference and are not repeated. Comment Letter No. 1 — Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) August 4, 2026 Comment Letter Comment 1: The City cannot rely on CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because additional feasible air quality mitigation measures now exist that were not analyzed in the 2007 or 2018 MEMU environmental documents. City Response: The City disagrees. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly contemplates reliance on a previously certified Program EIR for later activities that fall within the scope of the program. The relevant inquiry is not whether additional or different mitigation measures may exist today, but whether any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present requiring subsequent environmental review. City staff independently reviewed the applicant's CEQA Consistency Memorandum together with supporting technical studies and determined that the proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Accordingly, the Project remains within the scope of the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR. Appeal Application No. 2026-01 Responses to Supplemental Comment Letters August 4, 2026 Page 2 of 5 Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3) requires implementation of applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the Program EIR. Those mitigation measures remain applicable and will continue to be implemented through the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The identification of additional mitigation measures that were not previously adopted does not, by itself, establish that subsequent environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Comment 2: New indoor air quality impacts associated with formaldehyde emissions require preparation of aproject-specific EIR. City Response: The City disagrees. The comment relies upon an opinion asserting potential indoor air quality impacts associated with future building materials and indoor environments. However, the commenter has not demonstrated that these asserted impacts constitute new significant environmental effects attributable to the Project that were not previously analyzed under the certified MEMU environmental documents. The Project will be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable California Building Code provisions and State regulations governing building materials, ventilation, and indoor air quality, including applicable California Air Resources Board requirements governing formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Moreover,the comment relies upon generalized assumptions regarding future building materials and occupant exposure rather than evidence demonstrating that the Project would create new significant environmental impacts requiring subsequent review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Accordingly, the City finds no substantial evidence that the Project introduces new significant environmental effects beyond those previously evaluated. Comment 3: Scientific information published after certification of the MEMU EIR constitutes "new information"requiring preparation of an EIR. City Response: The City disagrees. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requires new information of substantial importance demonstrating either a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. The comment references studies published after certification of the Program EIR regarding indoor formaldehyde exposure. However, the existence of newer scientific literature does not automatically satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Appeal Application No. 2026-01 Responses to Supplemental Comment Letters August 4, 2026 Page 3 of 5 The City reviewed the available information and determined that the Project would not create new significant environmental effects or substantially increase previously identified impacts. The commenter has not demonstrated that the cited studies materially alter the environmental conclusions applicable to this Project. Comment 4: The Project's air quality impacts exceed applicable CEQA thresholds. City Response: The City disagrees. The Project's air quality impacts were evaluated through the CEQA Consistency Memorandum prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168,which concluded that the Project remains within the scope of the certified Program EIR and Subsequent EIR. The commenter has not presented substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project would exceed applicable significance thresholds beyond those previously analyzed or otherwise require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Comment 5: The City improperly relied upon prior environmental review instead of preparing a project-specific EIR. City Response: The City disagrees. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorizes reliance upon a certified Program EIR where subsequent activities are within the scope of the program and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. Following independent review of the administrative record, City staff determined that: •The Project is consistent with the MEMU Program; •No substantial changes to the Project or surrounding circumstances have occurred; •No new significant environmental effects have been identified; and •No substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur. Accordingly, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. Comment Letter No. 2 —Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (WSRCC) August 4, 2026 Comment Letter Comment l: The City should require use of a local workforce as environmental mitigation. Appeal Application No. 2026-01 Responses to Supplemental Comment Letters August 4, 2026 Page 4 of 5 City Response: The City disagrees. The suggested local hire requirements constitute labor or workforce policies rather than environmental mitigation required under CEQA. The commenter has not demonstrated that such requirements are necessary to mitigate a significant environmental impact specific to this Project or that CEQA independently requires their adoption. Additionally,the Project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law,which limit the City's ability to impose new discretionary conditions that are not otherwise authorized by applicable objective standards or supported by required statutory findings. Comment 2:The Project requires preparation of a proj ect-specific Environmental Impact Report under the fair argument standard. City Response: The City disagrees. The fair argument standard applies when determining whether an initial EIR is required for a proj ect. Here, the Project is proceeding under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 through reliance on previously certified Program EIRs. Under that framework, the appropriate inquiry is whether any of the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. Following independent review, the City determined that those conditions are not present. Comment 3: The 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR cannot be relied upon because they were program-level environmental documents. City Response: The City disagrees. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 specifically authorizes agencies to rely upon certified Program EIRs for later activities within the scope of the program. The Project site lies within the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone evaluated through the certified MEMU environmental documents. The City prepared and independently reviewed a CEQA Consistency Memorandum evaluating whether subsequent review was required. The City determined that the Project remains within the scope of those certified environmental documents and that none of the circumstances requiring subsequent review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. Comment 4: The MEMU environmental documents did not specifically analyze this Project. Appeal Application No. 2026-01 Responses to Supplemental Comment Letters August 4, 2026 Page 5 of 5 City Response: The City disagrees. A Program EIR is intended to evaluate environmental impacts associated with a program of related actions rather than each individual future project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly contemplates that later projects may rely upon the Program EIR provided they remain within its scope and no new significant environmental effects or changed circumstances require further review. The City's CEQA determination is consistent with that statutory framework. Comment 5: Changes in surrounding development and cumulative conditions since 2007 require preparation of a new EIR. City Response: The City disagrees. City staff evaluated whether substantial changes had occurred in the Project, surrounding circumstances, or available information that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The administrative record supports the City's determination that no such changes exist requiring additional environmental review. Comment 6: The Project should undergo additional project-level environmental studies before approval. City Response: The City disagrees. The administrative record includes a project-specific CEQA Consistency Memorandum and supporting technical documentation evaluating the Project under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168. Based upon that review,City staff determined that the Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Accordingly, additional environmental documentation is not required.