Santa Ana City Council
October 3, 2023

Fourth Street, is developed with two (2) three-story office buildings with a total floor area of 80,910 SF.

Vehicular access to the Project site is currently provided via two (2) right-turn only driveways on Fourth Street, one (1) right-turn only driveway on Cabrillo Park Drive, and a full access driveway located opposite Park Court Place at Cabrillo Park Drive; No cross vehicular access is now provided with the adjacent commercial property to the east. See Figure 1, a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the Project and surrounding street system. Figure 2 is an existing aerial photograph of the Project site.

Proposed Project
The proposed Project will include the development of up to 507 residential apartment/townhomes units with a total of 1,025 parking spaces. Site “A” is proposed as five-story apartment podium with up 449 apartment homes consisting of 23 studio units, 264 one-bedroom units, 148 two-bedroom units, and 14 two-bedroom/livework units, and 5,800 square-feet (SF) of ground floor retail space and 11,400 SF of live/work commercial/office space (estimated at 814 SF per live-work unit) “wrapped” around a six-level parking structure with a total of roughly 898 parking spaces. On-site facilities/amenities for residents of Site “A include 6,100 SF of commercial space that would be dedicated to the leasing office, mailroom and cowork space and business center, lobby/lounge, pool/spa, and a fitness center for residents, and courtyards. Site “B” is proposed as residential townhome community consisting of three-story townhomes with a total of 58 units and parking supply of 127 spaces consisting of garage spaces and surface parking. On-site facilities/amenities of the Site “B includes open space/courtyards. Although not counted as a part of the Project’s parking supply, an additional 23 on-street parking spaces will be provided on Park Court Place. The Project is expected to be constructed and completed by Year 2026.

Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed Project components. Figure 3 presents the proposed Site Plan, prepared by AO Architects. It should be noted that the northeast curb at Cabrillo Park Drive and Fourth Street has been modified to allow for southbound U-turn movements. Further, the proposed Site Plan illustrates the implications of the construction of a westbound right-turn lane on Fourth Street at Cabrillo Park Drive, which is identified as a recommended improvements in the Traffic Impact Study for the Metro East Overlay Zone in the City of Santa Ana.

Vehicular access to Site A’s parking structures will be provided from a proposed “right-turn in/right-turn out” driveway on Cabrillo Park Drive (Driveway 1) and a proposed “right-turn in/right-turn out” driveway on Fourth Street (Driveway 2), City Council 18 – 1718 10/3/2023
Ed McCoy
Dave Rand
June 27, 2023

whereas access to Site B will be provided via a “full access” driveway located opposite Park Court Place at Cabrillo Park; No cross vehicular access is proposed between the two Project sites or with the adjacent commercial property to the east. It is noted that an easterly driveway on Fourth Street, identified as a “Paseo/Service Lane”, is also planned to be provided and will be used as access for “move-ins” and service/trash trucks as well as emergency vehicles.

Pedestrian circulation for the proposed Project would be provided via existing public sidewalks along Park Court Place, Cabrillo Park Drive, and 4th Street within the vicinity of the Project. The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the existing development located along major thoroughfares.

PROJECT’S PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC TRANSIT
Public transit bus service for the Project site is adequate and is provided in the Project area by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA is the leading transit provider in Orange County and offers a wide range of fixed-route bus services.

OCTA has developed an extensive network of transit routes to connect residents and commuters of Santa Ana to key destinations. Four (4) OCTA bus routes operate within the vicinity of the project site on First Street, 4th Street, 17th Street, and Tustin Avenue, which consists of the following:
. OCTA Route 60: The major routes of travel include 17th Street and Tustin Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on 17th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the northwest and southwest corners. Route 60 operates on approximate 20-minute headways during weekdays and 15-minute headways on weekends.
. OCTA Route 64: The major route of travel is First Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on First Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the southeast and northwest corners. Route 64 operates on approximate 15-minute headways on the weekdays and 20-minutes on the weekends. There are 8 stops located along Route 64 that are within ½ mile of the site.
. OCTA Route 71: The major route of travel is Tustin Avenue. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on Tustin Avenue at 4th Street in the northeast and southwest corners. Route 71 operates on approximate 50-minute headways on the weekdays and 45-minute headways on the weekends.

City Council 18 – 1719 10/3/2023
Ed McCoy
Dave Rand
June 27, 2023

. OCTA Route 463: The major route of travel is 4th Street. Nearest to the project site are bus stops located on 4th Street at Cabrillo Park Drive in the northeast and southeast corners. Route 463 operates on approximate 25-minute headways on the weekdays and no bus service on the weekends.

Furthermore, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority also provides commuter and passenger rail service to Santa Ana. The Metrolink Orange County Line and the Inland Empire-Orange County commuter lines travel through Santa Ana, with stops at the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner also provides passenger rail service through Santa Ana, connecting residents and commuters of Santa Ana to neighboring communities throughout Southern California such as Los Angeles and San Diego counties.

Figure 4 graphically illustrates the transit routes of OCTA within the vicinity of the project. Figure 5 identifies the locations of the existing bus stops in proximity to the Project site.

PROJECT SCREENING CRITERIA
Project screening is used to determine if a project will be required to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. The following section discusses the various screening methods outlined in the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 2019), and outlines whether the Project will screen-out, either in its entirety or partially, based on individual land uses.

The City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 2019) states that several types of projects can be screened out from a VMT assessment using the criteria below, indicating that these projects have the potential to reduce VMT per service population (VMT/SP) and result in a less-than-significant transportation impact:
o Projects which serve the local community and have the potential to reduce VMT, such as neighborhood K-12 schools and local-serving retail less than 50,000 sq. ft. (Charter schools are excluded from this criteria).

Based on the above, the Project’s retail component will screen out since it has local-serving retail of less than 50,000 SF.
o Projects that generate less than 110 net daily trips.

Based on the above and as presented in Table 2, the Project will not screen out since it will generate more than 110 net daily trips.

City Council 18 – 1720 10/3/2023
Ed McCoy
Dave Rand
June 27, 2023

o Projects located within TPA. Appendix A of the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 2019) presents the transit priority areas in the City of Santa Ana. Due to the many high quality transit routes in the City, much of the City is a transit priority area. o TPA are defined as a ½ mile radius around an existing or planned major transit stop (e.g., Metrolink Station, Streetcar Station, etc.) or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor. o High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) are defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A map of HQTAs can be reviewed on SCAG’s website .1
o Please note that projects that are in TPAs will also be required to complete a secondary screening step to verify the proposed project’s consistency with the assumptions from the RTP/SCS. This consistency can be a land use review (e.g., are the proposed land uses already included in the RTP/SCS) or can be reviewed from a VMT/SP perspective (e.g., does the resulting land use increase or decrease the VMT/SP in the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) compared to the RTP/SCS assumptions).

SCAG has identified High Quality Transit Areas in the SCAG region.

According to the SCAG GIS data, the Project is located within an existing High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA) in 2016 as shown in Figure 6, and hence it can be concluded that the Project is located within a TPA. It should be noted that the Project site is located within a ½ mile of a HQTA (i.e. a stop located on a single corridor with 15 minute peak hour service or better). As mentioned previously OCTA Route 64 has 8 stops located within a ½ mile of the Project.

Further, the land use is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) as contained in Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) adopted Connect SoCal (2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; Draft May 2022)). Figure 7 and Figure 8 are the SCAG Data/Map Book land use designations.
1 https://gisdata-scag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/SCAG::high-quality-transit-areas-hqta-2016-scagregion/explore?location=33.915387%2C-118.359931%2C11.56 City Council 18 – 1721 10/3/2023
Ed McCoy
Dave Rand
June 27, 2023

The Project is consistent with the land uses in the RTP/SCS, which assumed the site would be constructed as an urban, mixed use development that would reduce area VMT, consistent with the TPA designation. Connect SoCal recognizes that development within Priority Growth Areas, including TPAs, supports mode shift and shortened trip distances. The Project site is within an identified Priority Growth Area, where urban development can contribute to reduced VMT and associated emissions. The District Center designation permits broad use types, including commercial, retail, hospitality, residential, and office uses that facilitate high intensity development with an urban character. The Project proposes diverse uses consistent with those permitted by the General Plan – residential, and local serving retail and commercial uses – and would implement development to achieve an urban character and is consistent with the land uses assumed for the project site as part of the RTP/SCS.

In addition, the Project's consistency has been evaluated with applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan Circulation Element, including:
o Policy 1.1: Coordinate transportation improvements in a manner which minimizes disruptions to the community.
o Policy 1.3: Utilize advance technology to improve traffic flow and minimize the need for land acquisition.
o Policy 1.4: Maintain at least a level of service “D” on arterial street intersections, except in major development areas. o Policy 1.6: Improve intersection capacity on major arterials to accommodate increased traffic demands.
o Policy 2.7: Continue design practices which facilitate the safe use of circulation systems.
o Policy 3.1: Support the efforts of regional, state, and federal agencies to enhance local and express bus services.
o Policy 3.2: Support programs which complement bus and rail services for specialized transit needs.
o Policy 3.3: Support the expansion of commuter rail services.

City Council 18 – 1722 10/3/2023
Ed McCoy
Dave Rand
June 27, 2023

o Policy 3.4: Encourage the development of multi-modal transit opportunities within major development areas.
o Policy 3.5: Enhance sidewalks and pedestrian systems to promote their use as a means of travel.

Furthermore, SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS integrates strategies for land use and transportation centered around sustainability, protecting and preserving existing transportation infrastructure, increasing capacity through improved systems managements, and providing more transportation choices, in order to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation. The City’s General Plan consistency, and thus the Project’s consistency, with the RTP/SCS can be evaluated based on the following applicable goals :2
o RTP/SCS G1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness.
o RTP/SCS G2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods.
o RTP/SCS G3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system.
o RTP/SCS G4: Increase person and good movement and travel choices within the transportation system.
o RTP/SCS G5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
o RTP/SCS G6: Support healthy and equitable communities. o RTP/SCS G7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network.
o RTP/SCS G8: Leverage new transportation technologies and datadriven solutions that result in more efficient travel. 2 Source: City of Santa Ana General Plan Update, Table 5.10-1. Attached at the end of this letter are excerpts from the General Plan.

City Council 18 – 1723 10/3/2023
Ed McCoy
Dave Rand
June 27, 2023

Hence, given the above, the Project will screen out since it is within a TPA (HQTA), as illustrated in Figure 6, where existing transit service provided by OCTA currently provides service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during the peak commute hours. The Project’s proximity to public transit is discussed in detail in the preceding section.

CONCLUSION
Consistent with the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 2019) and based on the VMT screening methodology and findings outlined in this Screening Memorandum, the proposed Project is located within a TPA (HQTA), based on the sites location within ½ mile of the 8 bus stop along OCTA Route 64 that has a 15 minute peak hour service or better as shown in Figure 6 and the land use is consistent with the RTP/SCS as contained in Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) adopted Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). Therefore, in accordance with the City of Santa Ana’s guidelines, the proposed Project is exempt from the preparation of any further VMT analysis and may be presumed to have a less than significant CEQA-related transportation impact.
* * * * * * * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Technical Memorandum. Should you have any questions regarding the memorandum, please contact us at (949) 825-6175. cc: File
City Council 18 – 1724 10/3/2023
TABLE 1

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Land Use / Project Description
Cabrillo Town Center Mixed Use
Project Development Totals
 Site A: 5-Story Wrap
o
o
o
o
Studio Units (600 SF) 23 Units (5.1%)
264 Units (58.8%)
148 Units (33.0%)
14 Units (3.1%)
449 Units
1 Bedroom Units (750 SF)
2 Bedroom Units (1,070 SF)
Live-Work / 2 Bedroom Units (1,200 SF)
Total Apartment Units:


Site A: Commercial
o
o
Retail 5,800 SF
11,400 SF
17,200 SF
58 units
Live/Work Commercial
Total Commercial Space:

Site B: 3-Story Townhomes
o Total Residential Units: 507 Units
Parking Supply
 Site A – Parking Structure
o
o
Resident Parking
Retail/Commercial/Guest Parking
808 spaces
90 spaces
Site A Parking Supply: 898 spaces
 Site B
o
o
Resident - two-car Garage per unit
Resident/Guest – Open Parking
116 spaces
11 spaces
Site B Parking Supply:

Total Parking Supply:
127 spaces
1,025 spaces
City Council 18 – 1725 10/3/2023
TABLE 2
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST3
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Exit Total
Daily
Description 2-Way Enter Exit Total Enter
Trip Rates:
.
.
.
.
215: Single Family Attached Housing
(TE/DU)

7.20 4.54
31%
23%
69% 0.48 57%
61%
43%
39%

0.57 221: Multifamily Housing – Mid-Rise
(TE/DU)
77% 0.37 0.39
710: General Office Building
(TE/1000 SF) 10.84

54.45 88%
60%
12%
40%

1.52 2.36
17%
50%
83%
50%

1.44 6.59 822: Strip Retail Plaza (< 40k)
(TE/1000 SF)
Existing Land Use Trip Generation:
. Cabrillo Park Drive and E. Fourth
Office Buildings (173,025 SF) 1,876 231 32 263 42 207 249 Project Trip Generation:
.
.
.
.

Cabrillo Town Center Apartments
(449 DU) 2,038
316
38 8
128
6 166
14 107
19 3
68 19
13 175
38 Cabrillo Town Center Retail
(5,800 SF)
Cabrillo Town Center L/W
Commercial (11,400 SF) 124 15 2 17 16
Cabrillo Town Center Townhomes
(58 DU) 418
2,896
-145
9 70
-4
19 155
-8
28 225
-12
213
19 148
-7
14 114
-6
33 262
-13
249
Total Project Trip Generation:

Internal Trip Capture (5%)
Adjusted Project Trip Generation 2,751 66 147 141 108
Proposed Project vs. Existing Land
Use Trip Generation Comparison +875 -165 +115 -50 +99 -99 0 Notes:

TE/1000 SF = Trip End per 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area TE/DU = Trip End per Dwelling Unit
3 Source: Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2021).

City Council 18 – 1726 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1727 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1728 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1729 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1730 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1731 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1732 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1733 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1734 10/3/2023
www.octa.net | Effective May 14, 2023
64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
Numbers on streets indicate transfers. Números en la calle indican transbordos.

Scheduled Departure Regular Routing
LEGEND

LEYENDA
Route 064/121322

MAP NOT TO SCALE
N
Flower 150
Main 53, 55, 553
Grand 59
Tustin 71
Bristol 57
Raitt 150
Fairview 47
Harbor 43, 543
Euclid 37
Brookhurst 35
Magnolia 33
Beach 29, 529
Goldenwest 25
Edwards
First 1st

SANTA ANA
TUSTIN
GARDEN
GROVE

MIDWAY CITY

WESTMINSTER

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
Asian Garden Mall
DMV
Bolsa
60, 79
Bryan
66 LARWIN SQUARE
60, 64, 66, 71, 79
Main
Moran
Center
Newhope
Standard
Ross
Newport

WESTMINSTER

MALL AREA
25, 64
WB
Only
Centennial
City Council 18 – 1735 10/3/2023
Effective May 14, 2023 | www.octa.net
64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
Edwards & Bolsa*Bolsa & Beach1st & Euclid1st & Harbor1st & Bristol1st & GrandLarwin Square 4:22 4:28 4:38 4:42 4:50 5:00 5:05
4:47 4:53 5:03 5:07 5:16 5:26 5:34
5:11 5:17 5:27 5:31 5:40 5:50 5:58
5:32 5:38 5:48 5:52 6:01 6:11 6:19
5:53 5:59 6:09 6:13 6:22 6:32 6:40
6:09 6:15 6:25 6:29 6:38 6:48 6:56
6:17 6:24 6:37 6:43 6:53 7:05 7:14
6:31 6:38 6:51 6:57 7:07 7:19 7:28
6:45 6:52 7:05 7:11 7:21 7:33 7:42
6:58 7:05 7:19 7:25 7:37 7:50 7:59
7:12 7:19 7:33 7:39 7:51 8:04 8:13
7:25 7:32 7:47 7:53 8:03 8:14 8:22
7:39 7:46 8:01 8:07 8:17 8:28 8:36
7:54 8:01 8:16 8:22 8:32 8:43 8:51
8:09 8:16 8:31 8:37 8:47 8:58 9:06
8:24 8:31 8:46 8:51 9:02 9:14 9:23
8:38 8:45 9:00 9:05 9:16 9:28 9:37
8:52 8:59 9:14 9:19 9:30 9:42 9:51
9:06 9:13 9:28 9:33 9:44 9:56 10:05
9:20 9:27 9:42 9:47 9:58 10:10 10:19
9:34 9:41 9:56 10:01 10:12 10:24 10:33
9:48 9:55 10:10 10:15 10:26 10:38 10:47
10:02 10:09 10:24 10:29 10:40 10:52 11:01
10:16 10:23 10:38 10:43 10:54 11:06 11:15
10:27 10:34 10:51 10:58 11:09 11:20 11:29
10:42 10:49 11:06 11:13 11:24 11:35 11:44
10:57 11:04 11:21 11:28 11:39 11:50 11:59
11:12 11:19 11:36 11:43 11:54 12:05 12:14
11:27 11:35 11:52 11:58 12:09 12:21 12:30
11:42 11:50 12:07 12:13 12:24 12:36 12:45
11:57 12:05 12:22 12:28 12:39 12:51 1:00
12:12 12:20 12:37 12:43 12:54 1:06 1:15
12:26 12:34 12:51 12:58 1:09 1:22 1:31
Edwards & Bolsa*Bolsa & Beach1st & Euclid1st & Harbor1st & Bristol1st & GrandLarwin Square 12:41 12:49 1:06 1:13 1:24 1:37 1:46
12:56 1:04 1:21 1:28 1:39 1:52 2:01
1:11 1:19 1:36 1:43 1:54 2:07 2:16
1:27 1:35 1:52 1:58 2:09 2:22 2:31
1:42 1:50 2:07 2:13 2:24 2:37 2:46
1:56 2:04 2:21 2:27 2:38 2:51 3:00
2:11 2:19 2:36 2:42 2:53 3:06 3:15
2:26 2:34 2:51 2:57 3:08 3:21 3:30
2:41 2:48 3:05 3:12 3:24 3:38 3:47
2:54 3:01 3:18 3:25 3:37 3:51 4:00
3:06 3:13 3:30 3:37 3:49 4:03 4:12
3:19 3:27 3:44 3:50 4:02 4:15 4:24
3:30 3:38 3:55 4:01 4:13 4:26 4:35
3:42 3:50 4:07 4:13 4:25 4:38 4:47
3:54 4:03 4:19 4:25 4:36 4:49 4:57
4:06 4:15 4:31 4:37 4:48 5:01 5:09
4:18 4:27 4:43 4:49 5:00 5:13 5:21
4:30 4:39 4:55 5:01 5:12 5:25 5:33
4:43 4:52 5:07 5:13 5:24 5:36 5:44
4:55 5:04 5:19 5:25 5:36 5:48 5:56
5:07 5:16 5:31 5:37 5:48 6:00 6:08
5:19 5:28 5:43 5:49 6:00 6:12 6:20
5:32 5:40 5:55 6:01 6:11 6:23 6:31
5:44 5:52 6:07 6:13 6:23 6:35 6:43
5:56 6:04 6:19 6:25 6:35 6:47 6:55
6:19 6:26 6:39 6:45 6:55 7:06 7:13
6:39 6:46 6:59 7:05 7:15 7:26 7:33
7:03 7:10 7:23 7:29 7:39 7:50 7:57
7:34 7:41 7:54 8:00 8:10 8:21 8:28
8:06 8:13 8:25 8:30 8:38 8:49 8:56
8:51 8:58 9:10 9:15 9:23 9:34 9:41
9:53 9:59 10:11 10:16 10:24 10:35 10:42
10:56 11:02 11:12 11:16 11:24 11:34 11:41
* This stop is 400 feet north of Bolsa on Edwards for both East and West trips.

Esta parada está a 400 pies al norte de Bolsa en Edwards para los viajes hacia el este y oeste.

Monday-Friday
EASTBOUND To: Tustin
Monday-Friday
EASTBOUND To: Tustin (cont.)
City Council 18 – 1736 10/3/2023
www.octa.net | Effective May 14, 2023
64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
Larwin Square1st & Grand1st & Bristol1st & Harbor1st & EuclidBolsa & BeachEdwards & Bolsa* 4:53 5:01 5:12 5:21 5:25 5:35 5:42
5:10 5:18 5:29 5:38 5:42 5:52 5:59
5:27 5:35 5:46 5:55 5:59 6:09 6:16
5:44 5:52 6:03 6:12 6:16 6:26 6:33
5:54 6:03 6:14 6:23 6:27 6:37 6:44
6:08 6:17 6:28 6:37 6:41 6:51 6:58
6:22 6:31 6:42 6:51 6:55 7:05 7:12
6:36 6:45 6:56 7:05 7:09 7:19 7:26
6:50 6:59 7:10 7:19 7:23 7:33 7:40
6:59 7:11 7:23 7:33 7:37 7:51 7:59
7:13 7:25 7:37 7:47 7:51 8:05 8:13
7:27 7:39 7:51 8:01 8:05 8:19 8:27
7:41 7:53 8:05 8:15 8:19 8:33 8:41
7:55 8:07 8:19 8:29 8:33 8:47 8:55
8:09 8:21 8:33 8:43 8:47 9:01 9:09
8:23 8:35 8:47 8:57 9:01 9:15 9:23
8:37 8:49 9:01 9:11 9:15 9:29 9:37
8:51 9:03 9:16 9:26 9:30 9:47 9:55
9:06 9:18 9:31 9:41 9:45 10:02 10:10
9:21 9:33 9:46 9:56 10:00 10:17 10:25
9:36 9:48 10:01 10:11 10:15 10:32 10:40
9:51 10:03 10:16 10:26 10:30 10:47 10:55
10:06 10:18 10:31 10:41 10:45 11:02 11:10
10:20 10:32 10:45 10:56 11:01 11:18 11:26
10:35 10:47 11:00 11:11 11:16 11:33 11:41
10:50 11:02 11:15 11:26 11:31 11:48 11:56
11:05 11:17 11:30 11:41 11:46 12:03 12:11
11:20 11:32 11:45 11:56 12:01 12:18 12:26
11:33 11:47 12:01 12:11 12:16 12:32 12:40
11:48 12:02 12:16 12:26 12:31 12:47 12:55
12:03 12:17 12:31 12:41 12:46 1:02 1:10
12:20 12:33 12:47 12:56 1:00 1:17 1:25
12:35 12:48 1:02 1:11 1:15 1:32 1:40
Larwin Square1st & Grand1st & Bristol1st & Harbor1st & EuclidBolsa & BeachEdwards & Bolsa* 12:50 1:03 1:17 1:26 1:30 1:47 1:55
1:05 1:18 1:32 1:41 1:45 2:02 2:10
1:20 1:33 1:47 1:56 2:00 2:17 2:25
1:31 1:45 1:59 2:11 2:16 2:32 2:41
1:45 1:59 2:13 2:25 2:30 2:46 2:55
1:59 2:13 2:27 2:39 2:44 3:00 3:09
2:15 2:29 2:43 2:55 3:00 3:16 3:25
2:31 2:45 2:59 3:11 3:16 3:32 3:41
2:45 3:00 3:15 3:26 3:31 3:46 3:54
2:58 3:13 3:28 3:39 3:44 3:59 4:07
3:10 3:25 3:40 3:51 3:56 4:11 4:19
3:22 3:37 3:52 4:03 4:08 4:23 4:31
3:34 3:49 4:04 4:15 4:20 4:35 4:43
3:46 4:01 4:16 4:27 4:32 4:47 4:55
3:58 4:13 4:28 4:39 4:44 4:59 5:07
4:10 4:25 4:40 4:51 4:56 5:11 5:19
4:22 4:37 4:52 5:03 5:08 5:23 5:31
4:34 4:49 5:04 5:15 5:20 5:35 5:43
4:48 5:03 5:17 5:27 5:32 5:45 5:53
5:00 5:15 5:29 5:39 5:44 5:57 6:05
5:12 5:27 5:41 5:51 5:56 6:09 6:17
5:26 5:40 5:53 6:03 6:08 6:21 6:28
5:38 5:52 6:05 6:15 6:20 6:33 6:40
5:50 6:04 6:17 6:27 6:32 6:45 6:52
6:06 6:20 6:33 6:43 6:48 7:01 7:08
6:22 6:36 6:49 6:59 7:04 7:17 7:24
6:45 6:58 7:10 7:19 7:24 7:37 7:43
7:05 7:18 7:30 7:39 7:44 7:57 8:03
7:35 7:48 8:00 8:09 8:14 8:27 8:33
8:07 8:20 8:32 8:41 8:46 8:59 9:05
8:55 9:04 9:14 9:21 9:25 9:36 9:42
9:55 10:04 10:14 10:21 10:25 10:36 10:42
10:56 11:05 11:15 11:22 11:26 11:37 11:43
Monday-Friday
WESTBOUND To: Huntington Beach
Monday-Friday
WESTBOUND To: Huntington Beach (cont.)
* This stop is 400 feet north of Bolsa on Edwards for both East and West trips.

Esta parada está a 400 pies al norte de Bolsa en Edwards para los viajes hacia el este y oeste.

City Council 18 – 1737 10/3/2023
Effective May 14, 2023 | www.octa.net
Edwards & Bolsa*Bolsa & Beach1st & Euclid1st & Harbor1st & Bristol1st & GrandLarwin Square 5:27 5:33 5:46 5:51 5:58 6:11 6:22
5:49 5:55 6:08 6:13 6:20 6:33 6:44
6:11 6:17 6:30 6:35 6:42 6:56 7:09
6:33 6:39 6:52 6:57 7:04 7:18 7:31
6:55 7:01 7:14 7:19 7:26 7:40 7:53
7:17 7:23 7:36 7:41 7:48 8:02 8:15
7:38 7:44 7:57 8:02 8:09 8:23 8:36
7:58 8:04 8:17 8:22 8:29 8:43 8:56
8:19 8:25 8:38 8:43 8:50 9:04 9:17
8:36 8:43 8:58 9:04 9:11 9:26 9:40
8:56 9:03 9:18 9:24 9:31 9:46 10:00
9:15 9:22 9:37 9:43 9:50 10:05 10:19
9:30 9:37 9:52 9:58 10:05 10:20 10:34
9:45 9:52 10:07 10:13 10:20 10:35 10:49
10:00 10:07 10:22 10:28 10:35 10:50 11:04
10:15 10:22 10:37 10:43 10:50 11:05 11:19
10:28 10:35 10:52 10:58 11:06 11:22 11:36
10:43 10:50 11:07 11:13 11:21 11:37 11:51
10:58 11:05 11:22 11:28 11:36 11:52 12:06
11:13 11:20 11:37 11:43 11:51 12:07 12:21
11:28 11:35 11:52 11:58 12:06 12:22 12:36
11:43 11:50 12:07 12:13 12:21 12:37 12:51
11:58 12:05 12:22 12:28 12:36 12:52 1:06
12:13 12:20 12:37 12:43 12:51 1:07 1:21
12:28 12:35 12:52 12:58 1:06 1:22 1:36
12:43 12:50 1:07 1:13 1:21 1:37 1:51
12:56 1:03 1:23 1:28 1:38 1:55 2:09
Edwards & Bolsa*Bolsa & Beach1st & Euclid1st & Harbor1st & Bristol1st & GrandLarwin Square 1:13 1:20 1:37 1:43 1:50 2:07 2:20
1:28 1:35 1:52 1:58 2:05 2:22 2:35
1:43 1:50 2:07 2:13 2:20 2:37 2:50
1:58 2:05 2:22 2:28 2:35 2:52 3:05
2:13 2:20 2:37 2:43 2:50 3:07 3:20
2:28 2:35 2:52 2:58 3:05 3:22 3:35
2:43 2:50 3:07 3:13 3:20 3:37 3:50
2:58 3:05 3:22 3:28 3:35 3:52 4:05
3:14 3:21 3:38 3:44 3:51 4:08 4:21
3:29 3:36 3:53 3:59 4:06 4:23 4:36
3:46 3:53 4:09 4:15 4:22 4:37 4:50
4:00 4:07 4:23 4:29 4:36 4:51 5:04
4:13 4:20 4:36 4:42 4:49 5:04 5:17
4:28 4:35 4:51 4:57 5:04 5:19 5:32
4:43 4:50 5:06 5:12 5:19 5:34 5:47
4:59 5:06 5:22 5:28 5:35 5:50 6:03
5:14 5:21 5:37 5:43 5:50 6:05 6:18
5:29 5:36 5:52 5:58 6:05 6:20 6:33
5:58 6:05 6:21 6:27 6:34 6:49 7:02
6:29 6:35 6:50 6:56 7:02 7:17 7:30
6:59 7:05 7:20 7:26 7:32 7:47 8:00
7:31 7:37 7:52 7:58 8:04 8:19 8:32
8:03 8:09 8:22 8:26 8:32 8:46 8:58
8:33 8:39 8:52 8:56 9:02 9:16 9:28
9:03 9:09 9:22 9:26 9:32 9:46 9:58
10:03 10:09 10:22 10:26 10:32 10:46 10:58
* This stop is 400 feet north of Bolsa on Edwards for both East and West trips.

Esta parada está a 400 pies al norte de Bolsa en Edwards para los viajes hacia el este y oeste.

Saturday
EASTBOUND To: Tustin
Saturday
EASTBOUND To: Tustin (cont.)
64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
City Council 18 – 1738 10/3/2023
www.octa.net | Effective May 14, 2023 Larwin Square 1st & Grand 1st & Bristol 1st & Harbor 1st & Euclid Bolsa & Beach Edwards & Bolsa*
5:12 5:18 5:32 5:39 5:43 5:55 6:07
5:37 5:43 5:57 6:04 6:08 6:20 6:32
5:59 6:05 6:19 6:26 6:30 6:42 6:54
6:21 6:27 6:41 6:48 6:52 7:04 7:16
6:43 6:49 7:03 7:10 7:14 7:26 7:38
7:05 7:11 7:25 7:32 7:36 7:48 8:00
7:23 7:32 7:47 7:54 7:58 8:10 8:22
7:45 7:54 8:09 8:16 8:20 8:32 8:44
8:06 8:15 8:30 8:37 8:41 8:53 9:05
8:28 8:37 8:52 8:59 9:03 9:15 9:27
8:46 8:55 9:12 9:20 9:25 9:42 9:55
9:06 9:15 9:32 9:40 9:45 10:02 10:15
9:24 9:33 9:50 9:58 10:03 10:20 10:33
9:39 9:48 10:05 10:13 10:18 10:35 10:48
9:54 10:03 10:20 10:28 10:33 10:50 11:03
10:09 10:18 10:35 10:43 10:48 11:05 11:18
10:24 10:33 10:50 10:58 11:03 11:20 11:33
10:39 10:48 11:05 11:13 11:18 11:35 11:48
10:53 11:02 11:19 11:27 11:32 11:49 12:02
11:07 11:16 11:33 11:41 11:46 12:03 12:16
11:21 11:30 11:47 11:55 12:00 12:17 12:30
11:32 11:43 12:01 12:09 12:14 12:32 12:46
11:49 12:00 12:18 12:26 12:31 12:49 1:03
12:04 12:15 12:33 12:41 12:46 1:04 1:18
12:19 12:30 12:48 12:56 1:01 1:19 1:33
12:34 12:45 1:03 1:12 1:17 1:33 1:46
12:50 1:01 1:19 1:28 1:33 1:49 2:02
1:05 1:16 1:34 1:43 1:48 2:04 2:17
Larwin Square1st & Grand1st & Bristol1st & Harbor1st & EuclidBolsa & BeachEdwards & Bolsa* 1:20 1:31 1:49 1:58 2:03 2:19 2:32
1:35 1:46 2:04 2:13 2:18 2:34 2:47
1:50 2:01 2:19 2:28 2:33 2:49 3:02
2:05 2:16 2:34 2:43 2:48 3:04 3:17
2:20 2:31 2:49 2:58 3:03 3:19 3:32
2:35 2:46 3:04 3:13 3:18 3:34 3:47
2:50 3:01 3:19 3:28 3:33 3:49 4:02
3:05 3:16 3:34 3:43 3:48 4:04 4:17
3:20 3:31 3:49 3:58 4:03 4:19 4:32
3:35 3:46 4:04 4:13 4:18 4:34 4:47
3:50 4:01 4:19 4:28 4:33 4:49 5:02
4:05 4:16 4:34 4:43 4:48 5:04 5:17
4:20 4:31 4:49 4:58 5:03 5:19 5:32
4:35 4:46 5:04 5:13 5:18 5:34 5:47
4:50 5:01 5:19 5:28 5:33 5:49 6:02
5:05 5:16 5:34 5:43 5:48 6:04 6:17
5:27 5:37 5:52 5:59 6:04 6:17 6:29
5:42 5:52 6:07 6:14 6:19 6:32 6:44
5:57 6:07 6:22 6:29 6:34 6:47 6:59
6:15 6:25 6:40 6:47 6:52 7:05 7:17
6:35 6:45 7:00 7:07 7:12 7:25 7:37
6:55 7:05 7:20 7:27 7:32 7:45 7:57
7:20 7:30 7:45 7:52 7:57 8:10 8:22
7:50 8:00 8:15 8:22 8:27 8:40 8:52
8:20 8:30 8:45 8:52 8:57 9:10 9:22
8:50 9:00 9:16 9:22 9:26 9:37 9:49
9:57 10:07 10:23 10:29 10:33 10:44 10:56
Saturday
WESTBOUND To: Huntington Beach
Saturday
WESTBOUND To: Huntington Beach (cont.)
* This stop is 400 feet north of Bolsa on Edwards for both East and West trips.

Esta parada está a 400 pies al norte de Bolsa en Edwards para los viajes hacia el este y oeste. 64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
City Council 18 – 1739 10/3/2023
Effective May 14, 2023 | www.octa.net
64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
Edwards & Bolsa*Bolsa & Beach1st & Euclid1st & Harbor1st & Bristol1st & GrandLarwin Square 6:11 6:17 6:30 6:35 6:44 6:54 7:01
6:42 6:48 6:59 7:04 7:11 7:20 7:28
7:02 7:08 7:21 7:26 7:35 7:46 7:54
7:24 7:30 7:43 7:48 7:57 8:08 8:16
7:46 7:52 8:06 8:11 8:21 8:32 8:40
8:08 8:14 8:28 8:33 8:43 8:54 9:02
8:28 8:34 8:48 8:53 9:03 9:14 9:22
8:45 8:51 9:05 9:10 9:20 9:31 9:39
9:01 9:07 9:22 9:27 9:37 9:47 9:55
9:16 9:22 9:37 9:42 9:52 10:02 10:10
9:31 9:37 9:52 9:57 10:07 10:17 10:25
9:45 9:51 10:07 10:12 10:22 10:31 10:39
10:00 10:06 10:22 10:27 10:37 10:46 10:54
10:15 10:21 10:37 10:42 10:52 11:01 11:09
10:30 10:36 10:52 10:57 11:07 11:16 11:24
10:45 10:51 11:07 11:12 11:22 11:31 11:39
10:59 11:06 11:22 11:27 11:36 11:46 11:55
11:14 11:21 11:37 11:42 11:51 12:01 12:10
11:29 11:36 11:52 11:57 12:06 12:16 12:25
11:44 11:51 12:07 12:12 12:21 12:31 12:40
11:59 12:06 12:22 12:27 12:37 12:47 12:55
12:14 12:21 12:37 12:42 12:52 1:02 1:10
12:29 12:36 12:52 12:57 1:07 1:17 1:25
12:44 12:51 1:07 1:12 1:22 1:32 1:40
12:59 1:06 1:22 1:27 1:37 1:47 1:55
Edwards & Bolsa*Bolsa & Beach1st & Euclid1st & Harbor1st & Bristol1st & GrandLarwin Square 1:14 1:21 1:37 1:42 1:52 2:03 2:11
1:29 1:36 1:52 1:57 2:07 2:18 2:26
1:44 1:51 2:07 2:12 2:22 2:33 2:41
1:59 2:06 2:22 2:27 2:37 2:48 2:56
2:14 2:21 2:37 2:42 2:52 3:03 3:11
2:29 2:36 2:52 2:57 3:07 3:18 3:26
2:44 2:51 3:07 3:12 3:22 3:33 3:41
2:59 3:06 3:22 3:27 3:37 3:48 3:56
3:14 3:21 3:37 3:42 3:52 4:03 4:11
3:29 3:36 3:52 3:57 4:07 4:18 4:26
3:47 3:54 4:08 4:12 4:21 4:32 4:41
4:02 4:09 4:23 4:27 4:36 4:47 4:56
4:17 4:24 4:38 4:42 4:51 5:02 5:11
4:32 4:39 4:53 4:57 5:06 5:17 5:26
4:47 4:54 5:08 5:12 5:21 5:32 5:41
5:03 5:09 5:23 5:27 5:36 5:46 5:54
5:25 5:31 5:45 5:49 5:58 6:08 6:16
5:47 5:53 6:07 6:11 6:20 6:30 6:38
6:09 6:15 6:29 6:33 6:42 6:52 7:00
6:33 6:39 6:52 6:56 7:05 7:16 7:24
7:00 7:06 7:19 7:23 7:32 7:43 7:51
7:32 7:38 7:51 7:55 8:04 8:13 8:20
8:00 8:06 8:19 8:23 8:32 8:41 8:48
8:29 8:35 8:47 8:51 8:59 9:09 9:16
9:30 9:36 9:48 9:52 10:00 10:10 10:17
Sunday & Holiday
EASTBOUND To: Tustin
Sunday & Holiday
EASTBOUND To: Tustin (cont.)
* This stop is 400 feet north of Bolsa on Edwards for both East and West trips.

Esta parada está a 400 pies al norte de Bolsa en Edwards para los viajes hacia el este y oeste.

City Council 18 – 1740 10/3/2023
www.octa.net | Effective May 14, 2023
64 Huntington Beach to Tustin
via Bolsa Ave / 1st St
Larwin Square1st & Grand1st & Bristol1st & Harbor1st & EuclidBolsa & BeachEdwards & Bolsa* 5:36 5:42 5:53 6:00 6:04 6:14 6:20
6:01 6:07 6:18 6:25 6:29 6:39 6:45
6:24 6:31 6:42 6:50 6:54 7:05 7:11
6:49 6:56 7:07 7:15 7:19 7:30 7:36
7:11 7:18 7:29 7:37 7:41 7:52 7:58
7:28 7:37 7:50 7:59 8:03 8:17 8:24
7:50 7:59 8:12 8:21 8:25 8:39 8:46
8:12 8:21 8:34 8:43 8:47 9:01 9:08
8:32 8:41 8:54 9:03 9:07 9:21 9:28
8:52 9:01 9:14 9:23 9:27 9:41 9:48
9:09 9:18 9:31 9:40 9:44 9:59 10:07
9:25 9:34 9:47 9:56 10:00 10:15 10:23
9:41 9:50 10:03 10:12 10:16 10:31 10:39
9:57 10:06 10:19 10:28 10:32 10:47 10:55
10:12 10:21 10:34 10:43 10:47 11:02 11:10
10:27 10:36 10:49 10:58 11:02 11:17 11:25
10:42 10:51 11:04 11:13 11:17 11:32 11:40
10:57 11:06 11:19 11:28 11:32 11:47 11:55
11:13 11:21 11:34 11:43 11:48 12:03 12:11
11:28 11:36 11:49 11:58 12:03 12:18 12:26
11:40 11:49 12:03 12:13 12:17 12:32 12:40
11:55 12:04 12:18 12:28 12:32 12:47 12:55
12:10 12:19 12:33 12:43 12:47 1:02 1:10
12:25 12:34 12:48 12:58 1:02 1:17 1:25
12:40 12:49 1:03 1:13 1:17 1:31 1:39
12:55 1:04 1:18 1:28 1:32 1:46 1:54
1:10 1:19 1:33 1:43 1:47 2:01 2:09
Larwin Square1st & Grand1st & Bristol1st & Harbor1st & EuclidBolsa & BeachEdwards & Bolsa* 1:25 1:34 1:48 1:58 2:02 2:16 2:24
1:40 1:49 2:03 2:13 2:17 2:31 2:39
1:55 2:04 2:18 2:28 2:32 2:46 2:54
2:10 2:19 2:33 2:43 2:47 3:01 3:09
2:25 2:34 2:48 2:58 3:02 3:16 3:24
2:40 2:49 3:03 3:13 3:17 3:31 3:39
2:55 3:04 3:18 3:28 3:32 3:46 3:54
3:10 3:19 3:33 3:43 3:47 4:01 4:09
3:27 3:36 3:49 3:58 4:03 4:15 4:22
3:42 3:51 4:04 4:13 4:18 4:30 4:37
3:57 4:06 4:19 4:28 4:33 4:45 4:52
4:12 4:21 4:34 4:43 4:48 5:00 5:07
4:27 4:36 4:49 4:58 5:03 5:15 5:22
4:42 4:51 5:04 5:13 5:18 5:30 5:37
4:57 5:06 5:19 5:28 5:33 5:45 5:52
5:12 5:21 5:34 5:43 5:48 6:00 6:07
5:26 5:36 5:48 5:58 6:03 6:16 6:23
5:46 5:56 6:08 6:18 6:23 6:36 6:43
6:07 6:16 6:29 6:38 6:43 6:55 7:02
6:27 6:36 6:49 6:58 7:03 7:15 7:22
6:55 7:04 7:17 7:26 7:31 7:43 7:50
7:24 7:33 7:46 7:55 8:00 8:12 8:19
8:01 8:09 8:21 8:30 8:34 8:44 8:51
8:30 8:38 8:50 8:59 9:03 9:13 9:20
9:00 9:08 9:20 9:29 9:33 9:43 9:50
9:54 10:02 10:13 10:20 10:24 10:34 10:40
Sunday & Holiday
WESTBOUND To: Huntington Beach
Sunday & Holiday
WESTBOUND To: Huntington Beach (cont.)
* This stop is 400 feet north of Bolsa on Edwards for both East and West trips.

Esta parada está a 400 pies al norte de Bolsa en Edwards para los viajes hacia el este y oeste.

City Council 18 – 1741 10/3/2023

TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM
To: Ed McCoy, Senior Vice President-Development Date: March 29, 2023 Fairfield Residential/FRH Realty, LLC
From: Richard Barretto, P.E., Principal LLG Ref:2.22.4531.1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Updated Traffic Circulation Analysis Addendum (original dated 02/01/2023) Cabrillo Town Center Mixed-Use Project
1901 E. 4th Street – SP22-026 Subject:

Santa Ana, CA
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to provide the following Updated Traffic Circulation Analysis (TCA) addendum in response to change in proposed access design for the easterly driveway on Fourth Street that was originally identified as “Paseo/Fire Lane” in Figure 2-2 – Proposed Site Plan, attached, prepared by AO Architects, dated 11/10/2022. This site plan was evaluated in approved Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Cabrillo Towne Center Mixed-Use Project, dated November 18, 2022 (Approved TCA).

The approved TCA considered the designation of the “Paseo/Fire Lane” and understood (assumed) that the driveway would have limited use for “move-ins” and service/trash trucks as well as emergency vehicles. As such, the distribution and assignment of Project-related trips to this driveway during the weekday AM peak hour or PM peak hour amounted to zero (0) trips as these type of trips would typically occur outside of the weekday commute hours.

From a review of the current site plan, Figure A – Proposed Site Plan, attached, prepared by AO Architects, dated 01/25/2023, the easterly driveway on Fourth Street is now identified as a “Paseo/Service Lane”. We understand that this driveway would continue to be used as access for “move-ins” and service/trash trucks as well as emergency vehicles as previously assumed.

Given no change in vehicular use for the easterly driveway on Fourth Street is planned, the findings and conclusions of the approved Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Cabrillo Towne Center Mixed-Use Project, dated November 18, 2022 (Approved TCA) remain valid and no revisions to the report are recommended or necessary.

Supplemental Sight Distance Evaluation
In response to additional City staff comments, a line of sight evaluation has been prepared for the proposed “Paseo/Service Lane” driveway as identified in Figure A – Proposed Site Plan.

N:\4500\2224531 - Fairfield Cabrillo Town Center, Santa Ana\Report\4531 Traffic Addendum 03-29-2023.doc City Council 18 – 1742 10/3/2023
Zdenek “Zed” Kekula, P.E.

March 29, 2023

At the project driveway, a substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. Adequate time must be provided for the waiting vehicle to turn right without requiring through traffic to radically alter their speed. A sight distance evaluation has been performed for the project driveways located along 4th Street.

The Sight Distance Evaluation prepared for the Project’s easterly driveway on Fourth Street is based on the criteria and procedures set forth by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the State’s Highway Design Manual (HDM). Corner sight distance was utilized for the evaluation. Corner sight distance is defined in the Caltrans HDM to be the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to maneuver their vehicle and avoid an object without radically altering their speed. Line of sight for corner sight distance is to be determined from a 3½ foot height at the location of the driver of a vehicle on a minor road to a 4¼ foot object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. Based on the criteria set forth in Table 405.1A of the Caltrans HDM and a posted speed limit of 40 mph on 4 th Street, a corner sight distance of 382 feet is required for right-turning vehicles at the Project Driveway.

Figure B presents the result of the sight distance evaluation for right-turning vehicles at the easterly Project Driveway located along Fourth Street based on the application of the corner sight distance criteria. This figure illustrates the limited use areas.

As an alternative, the easterly Project driveway located along Fourth Street has been assessed with the driveway being shifted 15 feet to the west. Figure C presents the result of the sight distance results. This figure illustrates the limited use areas as well.

From a review of Figure B and Figure C, the sight lines at this proposed Project driveway is expected to be adequate as long as obstructions within the sight triangles are minimized.

Please let us know if you have any comments or questions regarding this updated traffic memorandum.

Attachments
cc: Shane S. Green, P.E., LLG
File
N:\4500\2224531 - Fairfield Cabrillo Town Center, Santa Ana\Report\4531 Traffic Addendum 03-29-2023.doc City Council 18 – 1743 10/3/2023
dated 11/10/2022
City Council 18 – 1744 10/3/2023
dated 01/25/2022
City Council 18 – 1745 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1746 10/3/2023
City Council 18 – 1747 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
1 1. Response to Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Letter dated April 24, 2023
Appeal Application No. 2023-02 (SAFER)
Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, the appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03 based on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Specifically, the appellant 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 Mixed Used (MEMU) Overlay Zone EIR and Subsequent EIR 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.

Staff notes that the appellant does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in any new or more significant impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR or that new mitigation is required. Moreover, the appellant does not provide information as to why they believe a project-specific EIR should have been prepared, or what new and different significant environmental impacts would result from the Project that have not already been analyzed in the EIR and Subsequent EIR. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines, staff deemed that the Project is within the scope of the 2007 Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone Environmental Impact Report (EIR), hereinafter referred to as “Certified EIR.” Per Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 (a), when an EIR has been certified, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole records, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
City Council 18 – 1748 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
2 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) sets forth criteria to use a program EIR for “later activities.” Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states the following:
c) Use with Later Activities. Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR a provided in Section 15152.
2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR. 3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.

City Council 18 – 1749 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
3 4) Where the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.

Based on staff’s analysis, the Certified EIR meets the definition under Guidelines Section 15168(a) because the Certified EIR analyzed the potential impacts associated with the MEMU Overlay Zone, which is a generally applicable plan containing rules, regulations and other general criteria governing a specified geographically contained area. The Certified EIR fully analyzed the potential environmental effects associated with the City’s adoption of the MEMU and subsequent foreseeable development within the MEMU. As discussed below, the Project is fully consistent with the MEMU Overlay Zone and within the scope of the Certified EIR.

The Project Site is located in the Village Center District of the MEMU. Uses allowed in the Village Center District include a mix of commercial, office, and residential in mid-rise buildings of between 4 and 10 stories in a setting that provides open spaces, niches, and areas for gatherings and activities along streets, paseos, and interconnecting walkways that link the Village Center to adjacent districts and nearby public parks north of the Village Center District. The Project conforms to this description by including development of the Project Site with a mixed-use development including up to 507 residential dwelling units (including apartments, live/work units, and townhomes), approximately 26,800 square feet of commercial uses, and associated parking, utility infrastructure, landscaping, and open space in accordance with the Development Standards outlined in Table 1 in the Project Description of the Draft EIR portion of the Certified EIR.

As described in the Project Description section of this staff report, the Project Site would be separated into two distinct areas by a roadway (Parkcourt Place), which would traverse the site east/west. The northern portion of the Project Site would be developed with 58 townhomes and the southern portion would be developed with a five-story mixed-use building with 449 apartment units and 26,800 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, which could include retail, office, and shopkeeper, surrounded by a central open space area and a pedestrian infrastructure to connect the Project to adjacent land uses.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the allowable development under the MEMU. Finally, all applicable mitigation measures from the Certified EIR would be implemented by the Project, and each of the applicable mitigation measures would also be made conditions of approval for the Project.

Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe significant impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available that would result in new or more severe significant impacts. Moreover, no subsequent EIR would be required for the Project. Based on the analysis herein and the Certified EIR and City Council 18 – 1750 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
4 the whole of the record, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Certified EIR adequately described the Project activity for purposes of CEQA.

2. Response to Southwest Mountain States Carpenters (SWMSRCC) Letter dated May 3, 2023
Appeal Application No. 2023-03 (SWMSRCC)
Pursuant to Section 41-645(a) of the SAMC, this appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03 and provides four main reasons to substantiate the request, including:
(1) Requirement of a local workforce; (2) Training requirements to prevent community spread of Covid-19 and other infectious diseases; (3) CEQA compliance; and (4) Inconsistency with the City’s General Plan.

I. Requirement of a Local Workforce
The appellant states that, “The city should require the use of a local workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment.”
Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the City should require that Project to be built using local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California. Moreover, the appellant states that local workforce policies and requirements benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts. Specifically, the appellant contents that local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits.

Staff Response: In April 2022, the City of Santa Ana City Council adopted an ordinance repealing and reenacting the City’s inclusionary opportunity ordinance. The City’s Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO) became effective in May of 2022. The ordinance provides provisions for local skilled and trained workforce requirements.

Specifically, Section 41-1904 (c) of the SAMC, states that the use of a local skilled and trained workforce shall be phased in over time and shall only apply to a development project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units opting to exercise the in-lieu fee payment option. Section 41-1904 further states that between November 16, 2021 and December 31, 2025, a project proposing twenty (20) or more lots or units exercising the option to pay the 15-dollars per square foot in-lieu fee amount shall not be required to utilize City Council 18 – 1751 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
5 a local skilled and trained workforce for completing the construction of the project.

As previously outlined in this report, the applicant has selected the option to satisfy the AHOCO by paying in-lieu fees in the amount of 15 dollars per square foot. Based on available figures for the project, the project will contribute an estimated $8,043,600 in in-lieu fees, which must be spent on production of affordable housing in the City of Santa Ana (see Table 3 for the calculation methodology). Therefore, the applicant is in compliance with the AHOCO and is not required to provide local skilled and trained workforce.

Lastly, the provision of community benefits is not a requirement of CEQA.

Further, the Project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures of the Certified EIR. Mitigation measures beyond those required by the Certified EIR are not required unless the Project would result in new or more severe impacts compared to those analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Project’s CEQA Findings demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the MEMU and within the scope of the analysis provided in the Certified EIR.

II. Training Requirements to Prevent Community Spread Of Covid-19 and Other Infectious Diseases
The appellant states that, “The City should impose training requirements for the Project’s construction activities to prevent community spread of Covid19 and other infectious diseases.” Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the City should require that Project to be built using a workforce trained in a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) protocols. Moreover, the appellant contends that the City should adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities such as requiring safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site. Specifically, the applicant contends that the City should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

Staff Response: The applicant’s request for the Planning Commission to mandate additional public health training is outside of the Planning Commission’s purview and outside of their land use powers and duties, as outlined in Section 2-350.2 of the SAMC. Moreover, the request is well outside the scope of CEQA. The Project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures of the Certified EIR. Mitigation measures beyond those required by the Certified EIR are not required unless the Project would result in new or more severe impacts compared to those analyzed in the Certified City Council 18 – 1752 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
6 EIR. The Project’s CEQA Findings demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the MEMU and within the scope of the analysis provided in the Certified EIR.

III. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance a. The appellant contends that CEQA mandates preparation of an EIR for projects so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that a subsequent EIR should have been prepared because there has been substantial changes to the MEMU, and new information of substantial importance has come out since the Certified EIR. Moreover, the appellant cites Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Staff Response: Staff provides an analysis for why no subsequent EIR would be required, under the SAFER appeal analysis. To summarize, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe significant impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available that would result in new or more severe significant impacts. Moreover, no subsequent EIR would be required for the Project. Based on the analysis herein and the Certified EIR and the whole of the record, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Certified EIR adequately described the Project activity for purposes of CEQA.
b. The appellant contends that there are new transportation impact methodology requirements, not analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the Certified EIR uses the outdated Level of Service (“LOS”) methodology to analyze traffic and transportation impacts. The appellant further states that in July 2020, Senate Bill (“SB”) 743 took effect in order to help reduce transportation impacts. Specifically, in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas impacts and create long term sustainability, SB 743 changed the standard for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA from a LOS standard to Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) standard. Therefore, the appellant concludes that a subsequent EIR analyzing the Project’s VMT is necessary in order to adequately assess the Project’s transportation impacts.

Staff Response: The Project CEQA Findings demonstrate that the Project’s potential transportation impacts are within the scope of the City Council 18 – 1753 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
7 analysis of the Certified EIR, including Exhibit 9G (Project LOS Analysis) and Exhibit 9H (Project VMT Information). As discussed therein, since adoption of the Certified EIR, the LOS metric for analyzing transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA has been replaced with analysis of VMT to address consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). However, recent California case law confirms that CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) only applies prospectively to CEQA documents that have not yet been circulated for public review and not to CEQA documents that rely on previously certified EIRs that complied with applicable CEQA requirements when publicly reviewed. The court in Olen Properties Corporation v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270 explicitly recognizes that VMT impacts were known of and understood in 2006 when the EIR in that case was certified (the same year as the original Certified EIR for the MEMU) and therefore do not constitute new information that would trigger recirculation.

Thus, a project relying on a previously certified EIR under CEQA Guidelines 15168(c) is not required to provide a VMT analysis if: (1) the previously certified EIR evaluated transportation impacts based on LOS and (2) the subsequent project is within the scope of the impacts assessed in the previously certified EIR and any applicable mitigation measures are adopted.

The Certified 2006 EIR was certified well before CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) was adopted and relies on an LOS analysis, not a VMT analysis, to analyze the MEMU’s transportation impacts. However, impacts associated with VMT were known of and understood at the time the Certified EIR was certified and therefore do not constitute new information.

Moreover, the CEQA findings associated with the Project will not be circulated for public review. Therefore, no VMT analysis is required to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the Certified EIR and the City is evaluating such consistency based only on LOS.

Nevertheless, a VMT Screening Assessment Memorandum (“Memo”) has been produced for the Project for informational purposes only, in response to this comment. The Memo presents the VMT screening criteria, analysis methodology and the conclusion. The approach and methodology outlined in this Memo was consistent with the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 2019), which states that several types of projects can be screened out from a VMT assessment using identified criteria, indicating that these projects have the potential to reduce VMT per service population and result in a less-than-significant transportation impacts. Moreover, this Memo was thoroughly peer reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer, who concluded that the VMT memo prepared for the Project shows the project is screened out from any full VMT analysis.

Further, the Traffic Engineer confirmed that the Memo shows that the project is within a HQTA, and it is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS.

City Council 18 – 1754 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
8 Specifically, the Memo determines that the Project would not result in VMT impacts because it is located within a HQTA, where existing transit service provided by OCTA provides service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during the peak commute hours, and because the proposed land use was consistent with the RTP/SCS as contained in SCAG’s adopted Connect SoCal (2020–2045 RTP/SCS). Therefore, in accordance with the City of Santa Ana’s guidelines, the proposed Project was deemed to be exempt from the preparation of any further VMT analysis and may be presumed to have a less than significant CEQA-related transportation impact. c. The appellant contends that the Project requires new feasible mitigation measures to mitigate greenhouse gas impacts.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the Project requires new feasible mitigation measures not specified in the Certified EIR, such as electric vehicle (“EV”) parking and charging stations and solar system installation. The appellant further contends that these measures are of particular importance given that the Certified EIR, “failed entirely to assess greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts.” Furthermore, the appellant states that the Certified EIR fails to specify the following: 1) new requirements that residential buildings must designate 10-percent of their parking spaces as EV capable; 2) equip 25-percent of the parking spaces with low power level EV charging receptacles; and 3) and equip 5-percent of the spaces with level EV supply equipment. Finally, the appellant contends that the Certified EIR fails to include a mitigation measure requiring the installation of photovoltaic and battery system, thus a subsequent EIR should have been prepared to specify and incorporate these additional feasible mitigation measures.

Staff Response: The topic of GHG emissions impacts was not included in the CEQA Guidelines in place at the time the 2006 EIR was certified, 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. Since the approval of the Certified EIR, federal and state laws and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions, and the topic of GHG is included in the current version of the CEQA Guidelines. A detailed analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions impacts is included in Exhibit 9 and 9D of this document. As summarized, the Project would not result in any significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Moreover, statutory/regulatory requirements do not need to be repeated as mitigation measures for the Project. The Project would be subject to all applicable solar photovoltaic (PV) and EV parking City Council 18 – 1755 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
9 requirements (i.e., statutory requirements) as outlined in the current 2022 California Green Building Code.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) assists lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions, giving them discretion to determine whether to assess impacts quantitatively or qualitatively. The City, Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CARB, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), and other applicable agencies have not adopted a numerical threshold of significance for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. As a result, the methodology for evaluating a project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions.

Exhibit 9 describes the extent to which the Project is consistent with or exceeds the performance-based standards included in the regulations outlined in the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s CAP. Given the Project’s substantial consistency with state, SCAG, and City GHG emissions reduction goals and objectives, the Project is consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions. In the absence of adopted standards and established significance thresholds, and given this consistency, it is concluded that the Project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions and their effects on climate change would not be cumulatively considerable. Further, GHG emissions-related impacts have long been known and understood at the time the Certified EIR was certified, and therefore, does not constitute new information for the purposes of this analysis.
d. The appellant contends that the Project may have significant land use impacts which were not analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that a subsequent EIR should have been prepared because the Project may have significant unanalyzed land use impacts stemming from the Project’s request for a tentative tract map (“TTM”). The appellant cites the Section

3.7 (Public Actions and Approvals Required) in the Certified EIR, which states, “This EIR is intended as a Program EIR, and specific development proposals made in the Overlay Zone would be subject to separate environmental clearance/review.” For this reason, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR which specifically analyzes the Project’s TTM request in its land use consistency analysis is necessary.

City Council 18 – 1756 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
10 Staff Response: As part of the Project, the applicant is requesting approval of a TTM (County Map No. 19243) to consolidate four existing lots, and create two new legal lots (Parcel 1 and 2), one of which will be subdivided for condominium purposes for the townhome portion of the site. Parcel 1 will include 14,900 square feet of live/work space (19 live/work units) and 449 residential rental units. Parcel 2 will consist of eight 3-story townhome buildings containing a total of 58 residential for sale units. Upon completion of the subdivision, the lots will continue to be utilized for residential use in the form of attached tuck-under unit type structures (townhouse development), and commercial/residential mixed-use (wrap building), consistent with the objectives uses analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Pursuant to Section 3.2 (Project Objectives) of the Certified EIR, implementation of the MEMU was intended fulfill the following objectives:
• Create an active, mixed-use urban village where it is possible to live, work, shop and play all within a short walk of each other. • Facilitate well-designed new mixed-use development projects that combine residential and nonresidential uses through innovative and flexible design solutions.
• Achieve the harmonious integration of new mixed-use development within the existing fabric of the mid-rise and high-rise office environment.
• Provide for a mix of housing in order to encourage a continuum of living and a variety of household types.
• Allow for the development of varied residential types in a mixed-use configuration including, but not limited to, loft-style units, live/work units, attached row houses, and high-quality stacked flats Moreover, Section 3.3 (Project Description) of the Certified EIR outlines the primary elements in the MEMU, including:
• A potential increase in City population of 11,102 residents • A potential increase in the number of available residences within City limits by 5,551 units
• The potential development of 1,275,440 gross square feet (gsf) of commercial (retail and service) space, as well as 3,410,507 gsf of office space. This corresponds to a potential net increase of approximately 963,000 sf of commercial space and 690,000 sf of office space beyond existing conditions.

As proposed, the TTM is required for the feasibility of the Project in order to provide for the intended mix of uses as envisioned by the City, in accordance with the MEMU and Certified EIR. Pursuant to the California Building Code requirements, no building or structure can be built over City Council 18 – 1757 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
11 legal property lines to ensure compliance with fire and safety separation requirements. Therefore, approval of the TTM is required in order for the applicant to provide the proposed mixed-use development project.

Moreover, the TTM does not allow for the creation off additional units beyond what was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. The units that would be created under the TTM would be consistent with the Certified EIR objectives, and would allow for multi-family residential townhouses (Parcel 2) and mixed commercial and residential uses (Parcel 1).

Based on the above analysis, the Project would be fully consistent with the allowable development under the MEMU and within the scope of the Certified EIR. In addition, all applicable mitigation measures from the Certified EIR would be implemented by the Project, and each of the applicable mitigation measures would also be made conditions of approval for the Project. Therefore, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe significant impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available that would result in new or more severe significant impacts. Moreover, no subsequent EIR would be required for the Project. Based on the analysis herein and the Certified EIR and the whole of the record, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Certified EIR adequately described the Project activity for purposes of CEQA.

IV. Inconsistency with the General Plan
a. The appellant contends that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan because there are no onsite affordable units.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the Project “runs afoul to the General Plan” since it does not provide any affordable housing units. The appellant cites General Plan, Policy Open Space (OS1.10) which states, “encourage private and commercial recreational facilities that are physically open to the public and are affordable to residents of surrounding neighborhoods, and serve community needs”.

Moreover, the appellant cites General Plan, Policy Urban Design (UD-2.8) which states, that the City must “explore development and subdivision options that promote new opportunities for sustainable, livable, and affordable development.” Finally, the appellant concludes that the Project conflicts with the General Plan as it does not provide affordable housing units, and for that reason the City should have prepared a subsequent EIR to assess the Project’s land use impacts.

City Council 18 – 1758 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
12 Staff Response: The Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO) was adopted in 2011, then known as the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO), and amended in 2015, 2020, and most recently in May of 2022. The ordinance was adopted to implement the City’s General Plan Housing Element Goal of providing affordable housing within the City. Since inception, the Inclusionary Housing Fund has generated $28.2 million that has been used to develop new affordable housing, provide emergency shelter, and create homeownership opportunities. A total of 107 affordable housing units have been created, and an additional 86 units have been committed through such fees.

The AHOCO outlines various on-site affordable requirements for eligible ownership and rental projects. However, provisions allow for the payment of in-lieu fees rather than building the affordable housing units on-site. The Project would be a market-rate residential development with no units dedicated to affordable housing for lower-income residents. However, the Project would be required to pay an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee, consistent with the City’s AHOCO, to further the production of affordable housing units and development within the City. As previously outlined, the Project will contribute an estimated $8,043,600 in in-lieu fees, which must be spent on production of affordable housing in the City of Santa Ana.

Moreover, the Project would not remove any housing or affordable housing units. Rather, it would increase the housing stock of market-rate and affordable housing units through payment of an in-lieu fee. The Project would result in a net increase of 507 total units which consists of wide range of housing types, including apartment units at different bedroom counts and townhome style units, consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, the Project is in compliance with the AHOCO and the City’s General Plan Land Use and Housing Element.

General Plan Consistency
The City’s AHOCO, and specifically the in-lieu provisions, are consistent with various goals in policies in the City’s General Plan Housing Element (HE), including Goal 2 and 3, and policies HE-2.7, HE-3.1, and HE-3.2, outlined below:

Goal 2 – Foster an inclusive community with a diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana’s residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups.

City Council 18 – 1759 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
13 • Policy HE-2.7
Affordable Component. Pursuant to the Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO), require eligible rental and ownership housing projects to include at least 15 percent of the rental housing units as affordable for low-income households; or 10 percent of the rental units affordable to very low-income households; or 5 percent of rental units affordable to lower income households (5 percent to low-income, 3 percent to very low-income, and 2 percent to extremely low-income households); or at least 5 percent of the units ineligible ownership projects affordable to moderate-income households. Implement various strategies using the in-lieu fees generated by AHOCO to provide a wide array of affordable housing options.

Goal 3 – Increase opportunities for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income individuals and families to find affordable housing, and afford a greater choice of rental and homeownership opportunities. • Policy HE-3.1
Rental Assistance. Provide rental assistance for individuals and families with extremely low-, very low-, and low-incomes with funding from the federal government.
• Policy HE-3.2
Homeownership. Expand homeownership opportunities for lowand moderate-income residents and workers in Santa Ana through the provision of financial assistance, education, and collaborative partnerships.

Lastly, the in-lieu provisions, are consistent with the Item No. 25 in the City’s the Housing Implementation Strategy, within the Housing Element, which outlines the following objective:

Item No. 25 – Affordable Housing Opportunity and Creation Ordinance (AHOCO)
Collect and leverage in-lieu fees with other sources to support the production and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing for extremely low-, City Council 18 – 1760 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
14 very low-, and low-income families with a goal of funding eight projects for the planning period.

Inclusionary Housing Fund
Funding for this program is provided using revenues generated through inlieu fees from the AHOCO. Funds can be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate income (120 percent AMI), low- (80 percent AMI), very low- (50 percent AMI) and extremely low-income (30 percent AMI) households in the City. Funds can be used to make loans to eligible borrowers to provide affordable housing. Funds are also being used to provide down payment assistance for first time home buyers. The City has used its inclusionary revenues to fund the development of many of its more recent affordable apartment properties.

Inclusionary housing requirements cannot be confiscatory or deprive an owner of a fair and reasonable return. California Gov’t Code § 65583(a) requires assessments of the potential and actual constraints on the development of housing. Within that context, it is important for affordable housing programs to be set up to balance the interests of property owners and developers against the public benefit created by the production of affordable housing units. As such, the in-lieu fees above are based on an evaluation of the affordable housing requirements that could be supported from an economic perspective. The results of this analysis were translated into order-of-magnitude estimates of the in-lieu fee amounts that could be charged on a financially feasible basis.

3. Response to Southwest Mountain States Carpenters (SWMSRCC) Letter dated August 17, 2023
Appeal Application No. 2023-03 – SWMSRCC, Letter Dated August 17, 2023 As previously mentioned, the City received a supplemental comment letter on August 17, 2023, from Mitchell M. Tsai, on behalf of the SWMSRCC. Staff notes that this letter is outside of the 10-day appeal period, as outlined in Section 41-645(b) of the SAMC.

Therefore, the subsequent appeal items do not satisfy the requirements of SAMC Section 41-645 and should not be considered. Nonetheless, staff has prepared a comprehensive response below on all appeal items received.

In the subsequent letter, the appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving SPR No. 2023-01 and TTM No. 2023-03 based on compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the appellant makes outlines the following:
(1) That a project-specific EIR should have been prepared to analyze the Project; (2) VMT requirements; (3) Infeasible transportation mitigation requirements in the Certified EIR; (4) Adequate analyzes of noise impacts; (5) GHG impacts; (6) Land use impacts not City Council 18 – 1761 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
15 analyzed in the Certified EIR; and (7) Inconsistency with the City’s General Plan. Staff notes that the following have been previously addressed and will not be discussed further, as no new information was provided: (1) That a project-specific EIR should have been prepared to analyze the Project; (2) VMT requirements; (5) GHG impacts; (6) Land use impacts not analyzed in the Certified EIR; and (7) Inconsistency with the City’s General Plan.

I. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance a. The appellant contends that the City’s Transportation Mitigation Requirement is infeasible for the Project
Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the Project is not consistent with the City of Santa Ana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (dated September 2019). Therefore, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR must be conducted in order to assess whether the Project can adequately mitigate the Project’s transportation impacts and whether the Project conflicts with the City’s Resolution.

Staff Response: As previously discussed, the Project would not result in any significant LOS impacts, which is the metric utilized in the Certified EIR.

Further, the VMT Screening Memo for the Project CEQA Findings, demonstrates, for informational purposes only (and not as a legal requirement), that the Project would not result in significant VMT impacts.

Therefore, no VMT-related mitigation measures are required. b. The appellant contends that the Certified EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s noise impacts. Specifically, the appellant contends that the Certified EIR fails to identify all nearby sensitive receptors.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the Certified EIR does not adequately describe the environmental setting because it fails to capture all of the nearby sensitive receptors. Specifically, the appellant contends that although the Certified EIR identifies a total of 15 nearby sensitive receptors, the locations selected are almost all on busy streets or close to freeways, and therefore do not represent quieter locations that are set back and/or shielded from major traffic routes. Thus, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR must be prepared to assess ambient noise conditions for receivers further away from major traffic routes and/or shielded by intervening structures such as the Lake Diane apartment complex.

Staff Response: The Certified EIR analyzed potential noise impacts at 15 sensitive receptors. While the nearest sensitive uses vary at different locations in and around the MEMU, and as specific development plans had City Council 18 – 1762 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
16 not yet been determined at individual sites at the time the Certified EIR was prepared, it was assumed that sensitive receptors could be as close as 50 feet from where construction would take place. The comment alleges that impacts to the Lake Dianne Apartments were not analyzed. However, the Lake Dianne Apartments are located 80 feet away from the Project Site, greater than the 50 feet assumed as the nearest sensitive receptor by the Certified EIR. Thus, the potential impacts to the Lake Dianne Apartments are within the scope of those analyzed by the Certified EIR.

In June 2023, DKA Planning, an expert noise consulting firm, took shortterm noise measurements near the Project site to determine the current ambient noise conditions near the four nearest sensitive receptors: Cabrillo Park, 2001 E. 4th Street, the southeast corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive, and 618 Sherry Lane. The residence at 724 N. Parkcenter within the Lake Dianne Apartments is assumed to have the same ambient noise conditions as Cabrillo Park given its immediate proximity to Cabrillo Park and similarity in surrounding uses. For reference, Exhibit 9F (Noise Technical Report) outlines the Project CEQA Findings.

Regarding construction, the Project would comply with SAMC Section 18- 314 and construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday, and would be prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exhibit 9F demonstrates that construction of the Project would not increase ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors by more than 5 A-weighted decibels (dBA), and thus would not result significant noise impacts, including to the closest residence of the Lake Dianne Apartments. Furthermore, Exhibit 9F demonstrates that Project operation, including noise associated with mechanical and landscaping equipment, vehicles, outdoor and recreational uses, and trash and recycling services, would not increase ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors by more than 5 dBA, and thus would not result in significant noise impacts, including to the closest residence of the Lake Dianne Apartments.

Further, the Project would also implement Mitigation Measures MM-OZ 4.9- 1 through MM-OZ 4.9-7 of the Certified EIR to protect residential receptors and to minimize construction and operational noise and vibration levels.

Thus, the Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise and vibration beyond impacts already identified in the Certified EIR. c. The appellant contends that the Certified EIR fails to adequately characterize ambient noise conditions.

City Council 18 – 1763 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
17 Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the Certified EIR does not identify sensitive receptors. Moreover, they contend that the Certified EIR fails to adequately characterize ambient noise conditions.

Therefore, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR must be prepared to adequately characterize the ambient noise conditions by: (1) conducting 24-hour baseline noise measurements at locations selected to represent baseline ambient noise conditions at all sensitive receivers around the Project site; and (2) conducting continuous monitoring or, at a minimum, conducting 15- minute readings at 9AM – 5PM (daytime); 8PM – 10PM (evening); and 1AM – 3AM (nighttime).

Staff Response: First, this comment essentially challenges the adequacy of the Certified EIR analysis by making allegations about how the ambient noise measurements were taken. However, any challenge to the Certified EIR is untimely. The Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk and posted on March 23, 2007, and the statute of limitations closed in April 2007, and any challenge to the Certified EIR must have been filed before then.

Second, this comment does not present any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that the Project would result in any new or more significant impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR or that new mitigation is required.

Nonetheless, in June 2023, DKA Planning took short-term noise measurements near the Project site to determine the current ambient noise conditions near the four nearest sensitive receptors: Cabrillo Park, 2001 E. 4th Street, the southeast corner of 4th Street and Cabrillo Park Drive, and 618 Sherry Lane. The residence at 724 N. Parkcenter within the Lake Dianne Apartments is assumed to have the same ambient noise conditions as Cabrillo Park given its immediate proximity to Cabrillo Park and similarity in surrounding uses. Noise measurements were taken on a weekday afternoon using a Quest Technologies Sound Examiner SE-400 Meter that complies with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for general environmental measurement instrumentation. In the absence of a protocol for establishing ambient noise levels for construction analyses, 15-minute measurements were used to characterize typical noise levels during hours when construction is likely to occur. No construction will occur at night. As the major source of ambient noise in the area (traffic) was stable, 15-minute durations were deemed to be sufficient to characterize ambient noise levels. d. The appellant contends that the Certified EIR’s significance threshold is inadequate.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that CEQA Guidelines require that both temporary/periodic and permanent noise City Council 18 – 1764 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
18 impacts be identified and addressed. However, the thresholds of significance proposed in the Certified EIR would apply to operational (i.e. permanent) noise impacts only. Moreover, the appellant states that the Certified EIR contends that noise level increases less than 5 dba are insignificant so long as the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at sensitive receptors is below 65 dba. However, the appellant contends that it would be possible for noise from the Project to exceed the allowed limits according to the SAMC while remaining well below the proposed CNEL 65 significance threshold. Therefore, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR must be prepared which revises the threshold of significance as follows:

Any temporary or permanent noise impact resulting from the Project shall be considered significant if either one of the following conditions apply: (1) the Project results in noise levels in excess of standards established in the SAMC or General Plan; or (2) the Project results in a noise level increase of 5 dBA or more.

Staff Response: First, this comment essentially challenges the adequacy of the Certified EIR analysis by making allegations about the significance thresholds used. However, any challenge to the Certified EIR is untimely.

The Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk and posted on March 23, 2007 and the statute of limitations closed in April 2007, and any challenge to the Certified EIR must have been filed before then.

Second, this comment does not present any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that the Project would result in any new or more significant impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR or that new mitigation is required.

Nonetheless, Exhibit 9F analyzes both the Project’s noise impacts, both construction and operation. The analysis utilizes the same significance threshold as the Certified EIR, a 5 dBA over ambient threshold for construction impacts and a 5 dBA over ambient threshold for operational impacts.

Regarding construction, the Project would comply with SAMC Section 18- 314 and construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Monday through Saturday, and would be prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exhibit 9F demonstrates that construction of the Project would not increase ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors by more than 5 dBA, and thus would not result significant noise impacts, including to the closest residence of the Lake Dianne Apartments.

Regarding operation, Exhibit 9F demonstrates that Project operation, including noise associated with mechanical and landscaping equipment, vehicles, outdoor and recreational uses, and trash and recycling services, would not increase ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors by more than 5 dBA, and thus would not result in significant noise impacts, City Council 18 – 1765 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
19 including to the closest residence of the Lake Dianne Apartments.

Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures MM-OZ 4.9- 1 through MM-OZ 4.9-7 of the Certified EIR to protect residential receptors and to minimize construction and operational noise and vibration levels.

Thus, the Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise and vibration beyond impacts already identified in the Certified EIR. e. The appellant contends that the Certified EIR’s construction noise analysis and mitigation measures must be revised.

Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the characterization of construction noise impacts in the Certified EIR as less than significant, is inconsistent with the CEQA Guidelines since implementation of the MEMU would result in a significant adverse impact on noise. Furthermore, the appellant contends that the Certified EIR’s imposed mitigation measure for constriction noise impacts are improperly deferred since they are vague in nature and would likely be difficult or impossible to enforce in practice. Therefore, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR must be prepared to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s construction impacts.

Staff Response: First, this comment essentially challenges the adequacy of the Certified EIR analysis by making allegations about the significance conclusions and mitigation measures. However, any challenge to the Certified EIR is untimely. The Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk and posted on March 23, 2007 and the statute of limitations closed in April 2007, and any challenge to the Certified EIR must have been filed before then.

Second, this comment does not present any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that the Project would result in any new or more significant impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR or that new mitigation is required.

Further, the Project’s ability to implement the Certified EIR mitigation measures demonstrates that the measures are not vague and impossible to enforce. In fact the mitigation measures cited by this comment are standard best management practices that are regularly implemented in development projects and will be adopted as mandatory project conditions of approval. Thus, the Project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise and vibration beyond impacts already identified in the Certified EIR. f. The appellant contends that the Certified EIR’s operation noise analysis underestimates the Project’s impacts
City Council 18 – 1766 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
20 Summary of Appeal Reasoning: The appellant contends that the certified EIR’s operation noise analysis and mitigation measures must be revised as the analysis presented in the Certified EIR does not adequately demonstrate that HVAC noise associated with the Project will be less than significant. Therefore, the appellant contends that a subsequent EIR must be prepared which: (1) revises the operational noise impact analysis; (2) includes an evaluation of Project design features that would be incorporated into the building design; (3) includes revised analysis; (4) includes the outdoor amenities in the operational noise impact analysis; and (5) supplements the operational noise mitigation measures as necessary.

Staff Response: This comment essentially challenges the adequacy of the Certified EIR analysis by making allegations about the operational noise impact analysis. However, any challenge to the Certified EIR is untimely.

The Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk and posted on March 23, 2007 and the statute of limitations closed in April 2007, and any challenge to the Certified EIR must have been filed before then.

Further, this comment does not present any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that the Project would result in any new or more significant impacts than analyzed in the Certified EIR or that new mitigation is required.

As described in Exhibit 9F, noise impacts from rooftop mechanical equipment on nearby sensitive receptors would be negligible. First, most modern heat pumps are relatively quiet, with sound ratings of up to 60 decibels, equivalent to normal human conversation. Second, there would be no line-of-sight from these rooftop units to the sensitive receptors.

Because the sensitive uses near the Project Site are one- to three-stories in height, there would be no sound path from the mechanical equipment to receptors that would be 20 to 45 feet lower than the roof of the Project.

Third, the presence of the Project’s roof edge creates an effective noise barrier that further reduces noise levels from rooftop HVAC units by 8 dBA or more. A parapet would further shield sensitive receptors near the Project Site. These design elements would be helpful in managing noise. For the townhomes, outdoor mechanical equipment for heating and cooling for each residence would likely be located on the ground level of each unit.

This could include a ground-mounted heat pump that would generate noise during both heating and cooling sessions while air conditioners operate during cooling cycles. This equipment would include a number of sound sources, including compressors, condenser fans, supply fans, return fans, and exhaust fans. These units could be rated to generate a sound power between 51 and 76 dBA. Any off-site sensitive receptors would not experience elevated noise levels without a direct line-of-sight to these units.

Given their location near each residence, any sound path from these units would be attenuated by the presence of the townhomes and structures in the Project, as well as the distance to off-site receptors (i.e., Cabrillo Park City Council 18 – 1767 10/3/2023
Exhibit 10 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application Nos. 2023-02 and 2023-03 for Cabrillo Town Center project (1901 E. Fourth Street)
21 to the north, Lake Dianne Apartments to the northeast). As a result, noise from HVAC units would negligibly elevate ambient noise levels, far less than the 5 dBA CNEL threshold of significance for operational impacts.

Regarding potential impacts related to composite outdoor uses, Exhibit 9F explains that the primary use of these spaces would be for human conversation, which would produce negligible noise increases. There are no amplified noise sources proposed at the Project. Vocal intensity increases about 0.38 dB for every 1.0 dB increase in noise levels above 55 dB. For example, the sound of a human voice at 60 dB would produce a noise level of 39 dB at ten feet, which would not elevate ambient noise levels at any of the analyzed sensitive receptors by more than 0.2 dBA Leq.

Moreover, noise levels from human speech would attenuate rapidly with greater distance, resulting in a 33 dB noise level at twenty feet, and 27 dB at 40 feet. Table 9 in Exhibit 9F demonstrates that Project operation, including noise associated with outdoor and recreational uses, would not increase ambient noise levels, and therefore would not result in significant noise impacts.

City Council 18 – 1768 10/3/2023