Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.gov/pb
Item # 34
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
August 4, 2026
TOPIC: Appeal Application No. 2026-01 appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and approve one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01, for the Think Together Project located at 2101 East Fourth Street
AGENDA TITLE
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 - Appealing the Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and Approve One Incentive/Concession and Two Waivers or Reductions of Development Standards for the Think Together Property Located at 2101 East Fourth Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution denying Appeal Application No. 2026-01, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of a resolution to approve Site Plan Review No. 2026- 01 and one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01, to facilitate the construction of a seven-story mixed-use development consisting of 274 residential units, including 14 affordable units for extremely low-income households, and approximately 20,714 square feet of ground-floor commercial space for the property located at 2101 East Fourth Street (APN:400-041-03).
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 2026-01, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2026-01 AND ONE INCENTIVE/CONCESSION AND TWO WAIVERS OR
REDUCTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, TO BE MEMORIALIZED IN DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT NO. 2026- 01, BASED ON FINDINGS, INCLUDING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WAS EXEMPT UNDER CEQA SECTION 15168, FOR A SEVEN STORY MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 274 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 EAST FOURTH STREET (APN: 400-041-03) GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
DISCUSSION
Executive Summary
Randy Barth with Think Together, a California nonprofit corporation (“Applicant” and “Owner”), represented by Christine Saunders (application-listed contact person), received Planning Commission approval of Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2026-01 and approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) No. 2026-01, to facilitate redevelopment of an existing office campus located at 2101 East Fourth Street within the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU). The approved Project consists of demolition of two existing office buildings and construction of a seven-story mixed-use development containing 274 residential units, including 14 affordable units reserved for extremely low-income households, and approximately 20,714 square feet of ground-floor commercial space.
On May 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and approved Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 after finding the Project consistent with the General Plan, the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU), applicable provisions of State Density Bonus Law, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission also adopted a resolution approving one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, to be memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01, as conditioned.
Staff has reviewed the appeal and determined that the Planning Commission’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and comply with the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC), State Density Bonus Law, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For the reasons discussed in this report, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01.
Planning Commission Action and Background
On May 28, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Project. Following staff’s presentation, public testimony, and Planning Commission deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 5:0:2 (Commissioners Oliva and Benninger absent) to adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2026-01, based on the required findings, and a separate resolution approving one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement (DBA) No. 2026-01, subject to conditions of approval. Pursuant to Section 41-1602(d) of the SAMC, final approval of the Density Bonus Agreement is under the jurisdiction of the City Council.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
Appeal Application
On June 3, 2026, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“Appellant”) timely filed Appeal Application No. 2026-01 challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of SPR No. 2026-01 and the approval of the concession and waivers or reductions of development standards memorialized in DBA No. 2026-01, without any substantiating evidence or supportive documentation. Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, the City Council is authorized to hear appeals of Planning Commission decisions and, following a duly noticed public hearing, may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision, and may make any additional determinations it deems appropriate within the limitations imposed by the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
Should the City Council deny the appeal, the Planning Commission’s approval of the requested entitlements would remain, and the DBA would be brought forward to the City Council as a consent item at the next regularly-scheduled meeting. Conversely, should the City Council uphold the appeal, the Planning Commission’s approval of the requested entitlements would be voided, and no separate City Council consideration of a DBA would be necessary.
Background and Context
The project site is located at 2101 East Fourth Street within the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) and is currently developed with two existing office buildings and associated surface parking. The Applicant proposes redevelopment of the site with a mixed- use residential development utilizing the development standards established for the Village Center District of the MEMU.
A detailed description of the Project, applicable development standards, and Planning Commission findings is contained in the May 28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5), which is incorporated herein by reference.
Table 1: Project and Location Information
Item Information
Project Address and Council Ward 2101 East Fourth Street – Ward 3 Nearest Intersection Fourth Street and Parkcenter Drive General Plan Designation District Center – Medium High (DC – 3) Zoning Designation Professional (P); Village Center District (VCD) within the Metro East Mixed Use Overly Zone (MEMU)
North Office
East Office
South OfficeSurrounding Land Uses
West Medical Office and Trade School
Property Size 129,767 square feet (2.98 acres)
Existing Site Development Two 14,400-square-foot office buildings Use Permissions Mixed-Use (ground floor commercial and residential) Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
Item Information
Zoning Code Sections Affected
Uses Article XVI.I (Density Bonus) and Village Center
District within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay
Zone (MEMU)
Project Description
The proposed Project involves redevelopment of an existing office campus with the demolition of two existing office buildings and associated surface parking and construction of a new seven-story mixed-use development. The Project includes 274 residential dwelling units, of which 14 units (5%) will be reserved for extremely low-income households in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. The development also includes approximately 20,714 square feet of ground-floor commercial space intended to support neighborhood- serving retail, dining, and service uses consistent with the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU). The Project further includes structured parking, private and common open space amenities, publicly accessible open space, and frontage improvements along East Fourth Street and Parkcenter Drive. A detailed description of the Project, architectural plans, elevations, floor plans, and supporting exhibits were considered by the Planning Commission and are incorporated herein by reference through the May 28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit 5).
The Project was reviewed for consistency with the applicable development standards of the Village Center District within the MEMU. As shown in Table 2 below, the Project complies with the majority of applicable development standards. The Applicant requested one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law related to building setbacks, building height, and publicly accessible open space. The Planning Commission approved the requested incentive/concession and waivers or reductions of development standards, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01, as conditioned.
Table 2: Development Standards
Development Standards (MEMU)
Standard Required/Allowed Provided
Density 90 du/ac 92 du/ac – density bonus
requested
Lot Size 30,000 square feet 125,952 square feet (2.89
acres)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.00 FAR 2.7 FAR
Building Height
Up to 10 stories for a depth of 150
feet from the street and 6 stories
thereafter
7 stories throughout the entire
site – waiver requested
Minimum Floor Heights 9-15 feet 12’ ground; 10’-1” upper Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
Development Standards (MEMU)
Standard Required/Allowed Provided
Adjacent to Public ROW or Street:
10 feet (max.)
Adjacent to Park Center
Drive: 14.25 feet –
incentive/concession
requested
Adjacent to Fourth Street
5 feet
Adjacent to parking: 7 feet (min.) Adjacent to parking: 10 feet Setbacks
Building to building: 15 feet (min.) Building to building: 18 feet Frontage Type Front Porch, Stoop, Forecourt, Shop
Front, Gallery, or Arcade Shopfront and Forecourt
Publicly Accessible Open
Space
10% of the gross site area
(12,977 square feet)
10,666 square feet (8%) –
waiver requested
Private/Common Open
Space
90 square feet per unit (24,660
square feet)
Five-percent (5%) of the square
footage uses for nonresidential
uses (7,900 square feet on the
first floor and 12,814 square feet
on the second floor for a total of
20,714 square feet of
nonresidential uses requires
1,036 square feet of
private/common open space)
Total required: 25,696 square
feet
Balconies = 15,892
square feet
Amenities = 5,029 square
feet
Roof Deck = 1,047
square feet
Courtyard = 16,948
square feet
Total private/common
open space = 38,916
square feet
State Density Bonus Requirement
1 bedroom = 1 space
2 bedroom = 1.5 spaces
3 bedroom = 1.5 spaces
Total Requirement: 359 spaces
Parking Spaces
MEMU Requirement: 2.25 per unit
274 units x 2.25 ratio = 617 spaces
439 parking spaces
Analysis of Appeal
Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, any interested party may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. On June 3, 2026, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“Appellant”) timely filed Appeal Application No. 2026-01 challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
The appeal application (Exhibit 1) consists of a brief narrative asserting that the Planning Commission improperly relied on the certified environmental documents for the Project.
The appeal does not identify any specific factual or legal error committed by the Planning Commission, cite any contrary technical evidence or expert analysis, or provide substantial evidence demonstrating that additional environmental review is required under CEQA. Instead, the appeal presents generalized conclusions regarding the adequacy of the City’s environmental review. Staff has reviewed each assertion raised in the appeal and concludes that the Planning Commission’s decision is fully supported by substantial evidence contained in the administrative record. The appeal application contains the following assertions:
1. The Planning Commission erred in approving the Project and relying on CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and the certified 2007 MEMU Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2018 Subsequent EIR;
2. The Project will result in new environmental impacts unique to the Project that were not analyzed in the previously certified environmental documents;
3. Because the certified environmental documents identified significant and unavoidable impacts, the Project requires preparation of a project-specific Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
4. The Planning Commission should have required preparation of a project-specific EIR prior to approving the Project.
Response to Appeal Assertions
1. Assertion: The Planning Commission erred in approving the Project and relying on CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR.
The appellant has not submitted any additional evidence or information to substantiate that the Planning Commission erred in its decision-making. Staff has reviewed the issues raised in the appeal and concludes that the Appellant’s assertions are not supported by the administrative record. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use assumptions, development intensity, and environmental analysis evaluated in the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR. The Project site is located within the MEMU Overlay Zone and proposes the type of mixed-use residential development contemplated by the plan and analyzed in the previously certified environmental documents.
2. Assertion: There are new environmental impacts unique to the project that were not analyzed in the 2007 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and 2018 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that must be analyzed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or EIR.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
In order to evaluate the appropriate level of environmental review, the Applicant prepared a CEQA Consistency Analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. The analysis evaluated whether the Project would result in new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, or otherwise require preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review. The Applicant’s CEQA Consistency Analysis was peer reviewed by City staff. Based on that review and the administrative record, the City concluded that the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects, substantially more severe impacts than those previously evaluated, or any substantial changes to the Project, surrounding circumstances, or available information that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
The Appellant relies on an unsubstantiated assertion without offering any submittal of new or different evidence, technical studies, or expert analysis to demonstrate that unique or unexamined site-specific impacts exist. Under CEQA, mere speculation or unbacked claims do not constitute substantial evidence, nor do they trigger the legal requirement for a project-specific EIR.
3. Assertion: The Project relies on a previous EIR with significant and unavoidable impacts, and, therefore, requires its own EIR and statement of overriding considerations prior to approval.
The existence of previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts in the certified MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR does not, by itself, require preparation of a project-specific EIR for every subsequent development within the MEMU Overlay Zone. Rather, CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 expressly authorizes reliance on a certified Program EIR for later activities that are within the scope of the program, provided the lead agency determines that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Here, the Project falls within the scope of development previously evaluated under the certified environmental documents, and no new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe impacts have been identified.
Additionally, all applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the certified MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR remain applicable to the Project and will continue to be implemented through the City’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3).
4. Assertion: We [the Appellant] therefore request that the Planning Commission prepare a project-specific EIR prior to any approvals.
Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
CEQA does not require preparation of a project-specific EIR simply because an appellant disagrees with the Planning Commission’s determination. Rather, the Planning Commission was required to determine whether the Project was within the scope of the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR and whether any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review were present. Based on the CEQA Consistency Analysis, the administrative record, and the evidence before it, the Planning Commission determined that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review was required and properly approved the Project in reliance on CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The appeal presents no substantial evidence demonstrating that this determination was erroneous.
For the reasons discussed above, the administrative record demonstrates that the Planning Commission properly relied upon the certified 2007 MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168.
The appeal identifies no factual or legal error in the Planning Commission’s decision and provides no substantial evidence demonstrating that subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required under CEQA. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council deny Appeal No. 2026-01 and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026-01 and its approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, as memorialized in Density Bonus Agreement No. 2026-01.
Standard of Review
The City Council’s role in considering an appeal is to determine whether the Planning Commission’s decisions should be affirmed, modified, or reversed based on the administrative record and any evidence presented during the appeal. In conducting its review, the City Council considers whether the Planning Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the decisions were made in accordance with applicable provisions of the SAMC, State Density Bonus Law, and CEQA, as applicable.
The Planning Commission’s findings supporting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2026- 01 and its approval of one incentive/concession and two waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law are contained in the May 28, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report and accompanying resolutions (Exhibit 5), which are incorporated herein by reference.
Public Notification and Community Outreach
Project notifications were posted, published, and mailed in accordance with applicable City and State requirements for both the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council appeal hearing, as required by Section 41-645 of the SAMC. Copies of the public notices, including the 2,000-foot notification radius maps and site postings, are Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
provided in Exhibit 15 of the Planning Commission Staff Report and the hyperlinked exhibits included as Exhibit 5 to this staff report.
In addition to the required public noticing, the Applicant also held two community meetings in compliance with the City’s Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3040). The first meeting was held on October 15, 2024. Approximately 20 members of the community were in attendance and posed questions related to the unit count, unit type, parking availability, finishes on the interior, pricing, affordable units, and when the units would be available for sale. No issues of concern were raised regarding the proposed development.
The second meeting was held on September 4, 2024. Five members of the community were in attendance and posed questions related to the affordable housing units and when they would become available, but raised no issues related to the development. Materials from both meetings are posted to the Project’s City webpage (Exhibit 13 of the Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits hyperlinked as Exhibit 5).
In addition, staff contacted the identified representatives for the Saddleback View, Maybury Park, Lyon Street, and Zoo District neighborhoods to notify them of the Project and the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. No concerns were raised from the neighborhood associations leading up to the Planning Commission hearing.
Additionally, at the time this report was prepared, staff did not receive any comments or concerns regarding the proposed development.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The denial of Appeal Application No. 2026-01 would result in upholding the Planning Commission’s May 28, 2026, approval of the Project.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR). The Project is within the scope of the certified 2007 Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) and the certified 2018 MEMU Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Subsequent EIR), which previously evaluated the environmental effects associated with development within the MEMU Overlay Zone.
To evaluate the appropriate level of environmental review, the Applicant prepared a CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 Consistency Memorandum with support from Ganddini Group, Inc., the Applicant’s environmental consultant. The Consistency Memorandum evaluated whether the Project would result in new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts, or otherwise require additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. The Consistency Memorandum was reviewed by City staff, who independently evaluated the analysis and determined that the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified Appeal Application No. 2026-01 – Think Together at 2101 East Fourth Street August 4, 2026
5 8
6 2
impacts. City staff further determined that there have been no substantial changes to the Project, the surrounding circumstances, or the information available that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Furthermore, all applicable mitigation measures adopted as part of the certified MEMU Program EIR and 2018 Subsequent EIR remain applicable to the Project and will continue to be implemented through the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3). Accordingly, denial of the appeal would uphold the Planning Commission's determination that no additional environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15168. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption, Environmental Review No. 2025-01, will be filed for the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
EXHIBITS
1. Appeal Application No. 2026-01.
2. Resolution Denying Appeal Application No. 2026-01
3. Architectural Plan Set
4. Project Renderings
5. May 28, 2026 – Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits (Hyperlink) Submitted By: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager