The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About65C - REVIEW PC ACTIONREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 2018 TITLE: COUNCILMEMBER REQUEST TO REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2017-09 AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT NO. 2017-02 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE METRO EAST MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2110, 2114, AND 2020 EAST FIRST STREET, AMG & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS (STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3, 2; 5, 3) 004 __: C±yAANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION Discuss matter and direct staff. BACKGROUND CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: 0951T.071TS, ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1s' Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER The following item was considered by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2018 and approved accordingly: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2017-09 AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT APPLICATION NO. 2017-02 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE METRO EAST MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2110, 2114, AND 2020 EAST FIRST STREET (WARD 1) WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL REQUIRE A MAP OF THE OFF-SITE PARKING LOT LOCATIONS AND NUMBER OF OFF-SITE PARKING STALLS. AYES: MCLOUGHLIN, MENDOZA, NGUYEN, VERINO (4) NOES: BACERRA (1) ABSTAINED: NONE (0) ABSENT: ALDERETE, CONTRERAS-LEO (2) On June 4, 2018, at a special meeting, the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 2017-09 and recommended that the City Council approve Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 to allow construction of a mixed-use affordable, family-oriented rental community proposed by AMG and Associates at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street. The project will consist of 552 65C-1 Discussion and Consideration of SPR No. 2017-09 and Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 June 19, 2018 Page 2 affordable residential units and 10,000 square feet of leasable commercial space on property located at 2110 and 2114 East First Street, as well as construction of a portion of the project's required fire lane on property located at 2020 East First Street. The project requires approval of a Density Bonus Agreement to: 1. Secure affordability of the project for a period of at least 55 years, and 2. Allow granting of three concessions and one waiver from the City's development standards in order to facilitate construction of the project as proposed. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov't. Code Sections 65915 through 65918), the City is required to grant the three concessions and waiver unless technical studies are prepared to show that the project would negatively impact historic resources in the immediate vicinity or the project's design and operations, with the requested incentives/concessions and waiver, would be detrimental to public health or safety. City Council Options Schedule item for public hearing to consider modification of the Planning Commission action. No further action, in which case the Planning Commission approval stands. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #3 — Economic Development, Objective #2 (Create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies) and Goal #5 — Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability, Objective #3 (Facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to preserve and improve the livability of Santa Ana neighborhoods). FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact from this action. tJV"1.n\n 'Mqi ,KAYh Thai Executive Director Planning and Building Agency AP:rb S:RFGA\06-19-18\65C_SPR 17-09 & DBA 17-02 2110 2114 & 2020 E 1st St -AMG Exhibits: A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Planning Commission Excerpt 65C-2 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 2018 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2017-09 AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT APPLICATION NO. 2017-02 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE METRO EAST MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2110, 2114, AND 2020 EAST FIRST STREET, AMG & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS (STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 3,2; 5,3) Prepared by Ali Pezeshkpour Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ❑ Applicant's Request ❑ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO q_ . Plaqnir/g IfanagErr 1. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2017-09 as conditioned. 2. Adopt a resolution approving Density Bonus Agreement Application No. 2017-02 as conditioned. Executive Summanr Gene Broussard, representing Affordable Housing Land Consultants, Inc. ("AMG & Associates"), is requesting approval of a site plan review (SPR) and a density bonus agreement (DBA) to allow the construction of an affordable 552 -unit rental family-oriented mixed-use commercial and residential community known as First Point. As proposed, the project requires approval of several waivers from the Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) overlay district's development standards and/or development concessions through the density bonus agreement pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 through 65918 and Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-1600. The project also includes construction of a portion of the project's required fire lane on an adjacent, developed property located at 2020 East First Street. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request due to the project's satisfaction of meeting the intent of the MEMU overlay district to promote a pedestrian -oriented environment with a mix of land uses and because the project will provide additional affordable rental housing stock to an underserved segment of the region's population. Table 1: Prosect and Location Information Item Information Project Address 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street Nearest Intersection First Street and Golden Circle Drive General Plan Designation District Center (DC) ATTACHMENT A 65C-3 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 2 Item Information, Zoning Designation General Commercial (C-2) with the Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) overlay district U17-11 Active Urban sub -district Surrounding Land Uses Commercial North Commercial East Educational South Commercial West Site Size 6.69 acres combined Existing Site Development The site contains two commercial buildings Use Permissions Mixed-use projects permitted by the OZ -1 designation; deviations/concessions will address proposed deficiencies Zoning Code Sections Affected Uses I OZ -1, Section No. 4 Development Standards I OZ -1, Section Nos. 4 through 7 Project Description The project includes demolition of two commercial buildings and construction of an affordable rental family-oriented mixed-use community with 10,000 square feet of leasable commercial space. The project will contain two structures consisting of a ground -level parking area and five levels of residential above. A total of 552 affordable rental units will be provided on the project site. A total of 566 resident and guest parking spaces will be provided in an at -grade parking area beneath the residential levels, as well as 50 parking spaces for the commercial component and 4 spaces for the leasing office and the development's employees. The project will include one -bedroom units (27), two-bedroom units (239), three-bedroom units (146), and four-bedroom units (140) ranging in size from 610 to 1,266 square feet. All units will contain full kitchens, bedrooms, bathrooms, in -unit storage, and open/common (living) areas. Open space will be provided through a publically-accessible plaza fronting First Street, eight private courtyards, and amenity areas. The public plaza with open seating will front First Street and will also contain seating, landscaping, and hardscape areas suitable for programming with temporary kiosks or events. The project's commercial area and leasing office will also front First Street, enhancing the development's street presence. Eight courtyards with distinct themes and amenities for children and adults will be located throughout the interior of the site. Interior common rooms such as recreation areas, fitness centers, and laundry rooms will provide additional amenities to residents and visitors. A common open space "view room" on the upper levels will face north toward First Street with views toward the Xerox Tower and the recently - completed Nineteen0l mixed-use development. The project will feature a contemporary architectural style common of many multiple -family or mixed-use residential communities under construction in Santa Ana and the region. Ceramic tile, fiber cement board and siding, smooth stucco finishes, and metal railings will contribute to this theme. These solid materials will ensure that the project ages well for the duration of the building's lifetime. Although not a part of the current entitlement, the applicant intends to submit a tentative parcel map application at a future date to subdivide the project site into two lots for financing purposes in order to facilitate construction of both buildings. The applicant is currently preparing the 65C-4 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 3 required tentative parcel map, which will clarify if the proposed subdivision will be for fee -simple lots or for condominium purposes. The tentative parcel map application will require review and action by the City's Zoning Administrator. Table 2: Conformance to Development Standards Standard Required b :the`MEMU ". Provided ' Stories Minimum 3, no maximum 6 Minimum Site Area 1 acre 6.89 acres Permitted Frontage Forecourt, shopfront, gallery, or Shopfront, with plaza on First Street arcade as ermitted b MEMU Publicly Accessible Open Space 15 percent of total lot area Less than 2 percent — Requires 35 -Percent State Density Bonus +217 units Concession (1 of 3), Cal. Gov't 0 35 -Percent Bonus Provided by the Code Sec. 65915 (d)(1) Private/Common Open Space 100 square feet per unit 104 square feet per unit Building Setbacks 0-20 feet (front), 0-10 feet (side), 100 6 (front), 6-40 (side), 45 (rear) — 552 units proposed feet (rear) Requires Concession (2 of 3), Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 65915 (d)(1) Residential Parking 2 spaces per unit overall — every unit 1.03 spaces per unit — Requires must be allocated at least 1 space Concession (3 of 3), Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 65915 (d)(1) Courtyard height -to -width ratios 2 to 1 (enclosed on four sides), 3 to Complies; various ratios in excessof 1 (open on one or more sides 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 provided Driveway width 24 feet maximum 38-46 feet — Requires Waiver, Cal. Govt Code Sec. 65915 (e)(1) Building Massing A variety of massing, volume, and Complies; the building features a step -backs are required to increase step -back along First Street and buildingarticulation breaks in volume to reduce massing Table 3: Density Bonus Calculation .Density or;Borius; , .'i :Allowed,fot'Pro ectj_ : ° , Provided': Base Density 620 units (6.89 acres x 90 units/acre 552 units base density used as a standard for developments in areas designated DC by the General Plan Land Use element 35 -Percent State Density Bonus +217 units 620 x 0.35 0 35 -Percent Bonus Provided by the +217 units (620 x 0.35) 0 Housin O ortunit Ordinance Total Units1 1054 units maximum 552 units proposed Although the project is proposing a total number of units (552) that is below the maximum City - prescribed density for the project site based on its acreage, the developer is able to seek up to three density bonus concessions and a waiver because it is a 100 -percent affordable project. The City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) allows developers to request up to two concessions to facilitate construction of affordable housing. However, none of the concessions listed in the HOO are being requested by the applicant. Instead, the three requested concessions and the waiver are permitted by Section 65915 et al. of the California Government Code (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives). Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65915 (d)(1) and 65915 (e)(1), a local jurisdiction is limited in its ability to deny the requested concessions and waiver and is 65C-5 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 4 preempted from denying the Density Bonus Agreement application. Although the City has analyzed the project and has identified several areas of concern, the conditions of approval proposed for the project are intended to address any of the project's potential impacts. Background The Metro East Mixed Use overlay district was adopted in 2007 as a result of interest in developing mixed-use residential and commercial projects in its project area. The regulating plan, which establishes land uses and development standards, allows a variety of housing and commercial projects, including mixed-use residential communities, live/work units, hotels, and offices. Since its adoption, one mixed-use project at 1901 East First Street has been constructed and is occupied. Another affordable rental residential project by the same developer at 2222 East First Street was entitled in September 2017, and a market -rate mixed-use development at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive is currently entitled. The California Density Bonus law allows developers proposing five or more residential units to seek increases in base density for providing on-site housing units in exchange for providing affordable units on site. To help make constructing on-site affordable units feasible, the law allows developers to seek up to three incentives/concessions and an unlimited number of waivers, which are essentially variances from development standards that would help the project be built without significant burden and without detriment to public health. The first version of the Density Bonus Law was adopted in 1979 and has since been amended at various times. Recent revisions allow affordable housing developers to request incentives/concessions and/or waivers for 100 -percent affordable developments, even if they do not require a numerical density bonus. Moreover, in early 2017, the law was amended to restrict the ability of local jurisdictions to require studies to 'justify" the density bonus and requested incentives/waivers and places the onus on local jurisdictions to prove that the incentives/concessions or waivers are not financially warranted. Analysis of the Issues Section 8 of the MEMU regulating plan, Implementation, requires the Planning Commission to review an application for development subject to the provisions of the overlay district. Upon review of the required Site Plan Review (SPR) application, the Planning Commission may take the following actions: approve, approve with conditions, or deny the SPR. The City's Development Review Committee has reviewed the project and finds that it is incompliance with the majority of development standards contained within the MEMU regulating plan, with the exception of the four development standard deviations requested by the applicant indicated in this report. In addition, Section 41-1607 requires an application for a density bonus agreement containing "deviations" (incentives/concessions and/or waivers) to be approved by the Planning Commission. The following subsections analyze the applicant's request for both the Site Plan Review and the Density Bonus Agreement applications. Table 4: Analysis of the Requested Incentives/Concessions (3) and Waiver (1) Standard I Analysis 65C-6 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 5 Standard Analysis Publicly Accessible The MEMU regulating plan requires that publicly -accessible open space be provided Open Space along main street -facing fagades. Because the project has frontage on only one street, (Incentive/Concession) meeting this requirement would result In the building being pushed back significantly from First Street and would render almost the first 1/4 of the site's depth unusable for building area, resulting in the developer having to construct a parking structure or subterranean parking, significantly increasing building costs. Moreover, in order to maintain the current proposed unit count, the developer would be required to construct additional levels, resulting In a different type of construction (steel-frame/Type I versus wood/Type III), further Increasing development costs. If the publically accessible open space standard were applied as written, the result would be a significant loss of units and parking area. Pushing the building back would also reduce the contribution to creating a more urban, walkable environment. The applicant intends to compensate for this reduction by providing a greater average square footage of private/common open sace per unit on the project site. Building Setbacks For a project of this size and construction type, OCFA requires 360 -degree circulation (Incentive/Concession) on the project site with minimum 20 -foot fire lanes. The addition of landscaping and walkways around the project perimeter results in the project not being able to meet the maximum 10 -foot side yard requirement. Further, for a project of this height, the MEMU requires a 100 -foot rear yard setback. In order to maintain the current proposed unit count, the developer would be required to construct additional levels, resulting In a different type of construction ,(steel -frame versus wood), further increasing development costs. Implementing this standard as written would result in the building being set back an additional 55 feet from the rear lot line, resulting In a significant loss of units and parking area. Onsite parking Constructing 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit on the project site would require (Incentive/Concession) the developer to construct an additional level of parking either above- or below -grade, resulting in Increased construction costs and/or a loss of an entire level of residential units. Driveway width (Waiver) If the project were designed with narrower driveways, the driveways would not conform to minimum standards established for fire ingresslegress by OCFA and for trash truck ingress/egress established by the Public Works Agency and Waste Management, the current waste collector contracted by the City. As a result, a waiver from the maximum driveway width is required. When analyzed cumulatively, the three requested concessions could be avoided if the project were constructed using a different site plan and building type. If the project were designed with a multi- level parking and/or subterranean parking structure, or if the applicant used different building materials (non-combustible, Type 1) to construct a taller project, additional area on site would become available to provide open space and parking, and to meet the required rear yard setback. However, these changes would increase development costs, resulting in the affordable housing project becoming financially infeasible due to the significantly -increased financial implications of using Type I construction. Additional Issues The City thoroughly reviewed the applicant's request to construct the proposed project and identified several additional items for consideration. These items are listed below and analyzed in the following paragraphs. 1. Large Family Housing and Unit Bedroom Mix 65C-7 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 6 Nearly half (48 percent) of the project's units will contain one or two bedrooms. The original project proposed at the site contained both senior and family-oriented housing in nearly 700 residential units. Following feedback from elected officials and City staff on housing needs identified in the 2014 Housing Element, the applicant revised the project to completely eliminate the senior component; the unit count was reduced to the present 552. In doing so, the applicant increased the number of multi -bedroom units. In 2010, the US Census reported that the average household size in Santa Ana was 4.37 and that the average family size was 4.54. Santa Ana's average household and family sizes are above Orange County's, which has an average household size of 3.99. As a result, the lower bedroom count of the project may serve a different segment of the population not identified in any local demographic (household or family size) figures or In the 2014 Housing Element. This issue may be exacerbated by the community's overall lower -than -average unit square footage of 1,061 square feet, which is below the 1,200 -square foot unit average stated as a guideline in the MEMU regulating plan. 2. Housing Opportunity Ordinance (H00) and the State's Density Bonus Law Under the State's Density Bonus Law, developers of affordable family-oriented housing projects may request a numerical density bonus up to 35 percent from base density. The City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO), last updated in 2015, augments the density bonus concept by allowing a developer to seek an additional 35 percent density bonus calculated from base density (SAMC Sec. 41-1904.1). Despite this opportunity for a "double density bonus," staffs interpretation of the intent of both the State law and local ordinance support the concept of mixed -Income housing development, with affordable housing units forming a component of such developments. Pursuant to SAMC Sec. 41-1600, the purpose of the City's ordinance is "to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their residential development will be available to low income, very low-income, or senior (also known as "qualified") households." Moreover, 'The regulations are intended to ... provide a balance of housing opportunities for low income, very low-income, and senior households throughout the city." Mixed -income housing developments provide a "portion" of affordable units in an integrated, mixed - income development unless it is financially or physically infeasible to do so, in which case a developer may pay an in -lieu fee to facilitate construction of affordable housing developments offsite. The City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance's furthers this goal, stating that is purpose is to "encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels" (SAMC Sec. 41-1900). It is also important to note the language in SAMC Sec. 41-1600 that encourages development of affordable housing for "households throughout the City' (geographically dispersed). The developer has recently entitled an all -affordable senior project ("Villa Court") on a project site approximately 320 feet to the east at 2222 East First Street that will contain 418 units. If approved, the proposed project would add another 552 all -affordable housing units in nearby, for a combined 970 affordable housing units in close proximity to one another. 65C-8 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 7 The City is required to revisit the HOO before December 31, 2018 to evaluate any amendments to the ordinance. On May 14, 2018, the Economic Development, Infrastructure, Budget and Technology (EDIBT) Council Committee met. Staff presented a verbal update on the HOO, and the Committee discussed HOO-related topics for discussion, including geographic dispersal of units and incorporating affordable units into mixed -income projects. The HOO is silent on policies regarding all -affordable housing projects or geographic dispersing of affordable housing. Accordingly, these areas of discussions were not applied to analysis of the project. 3. Project Open Space Although stated as a guideline in the regulating plan, the project's unit sizes are generally well below the 1,200 -square -foot average unit size objective. Under such circumstances, a project would typically provide greater onsite open space per unit, either as private open space or as common open space for the residents of the community. The applicant has considered this guideline and proposes to compensate through a greater average private/common open space area of 104 square feet per unit instead of the 100 -square -foot minimum, which results in 2,200 additional square feet of open space. However, given the large nature of the project and the reduction in private, common, and publically accessible open space, the extra four (4) square feet per unit may be insufficient to compensate for the overall open space reduction. In addition, only 12 units of the 552 total will have balconies or terraces. 4. Development Intensity and Requested Deviations The project is proposing a project density of 80 units per acre, which is below the typical 90 units per acre assumed by the District Center General Plan land use designation that is applied to the project site. However, in reviewing the proposed project, staff drew comparisons against the recently -entitled Madison mixed-use residential and commercial community at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive, also in the MEMU area. The Madison was entitled with an overall density of 93 units per acre (260 units on 2.79 acres). This project was able to meet all MEMU regulating plan's development standards, including open space and building setbacks, with the exception of required onsite parking and maximum driveway widths, both of which the City Council approved through variance applications. Staff analysis indicates that the Madison was able to meet all MEMU standards due to the project's site plan, which features a multi-level parking structure at the heart of the development. The location and multi-level nature of the parking structure frees additional space on the project site that enables the development to meet MEMU standards, including all forms of open space (publically accessible, common, and private/per unit). 5. Reduction in Required Parking and Proposed Shuttle and Parking Valet Service Staff has analyzed the proposed project and finds that there is potential that the project and neighborhood may be impacted by the reduced parking. The City has identified the MEMU area for high-intensity, mixed use development in order to reduce demands for parking and traffic impacts. However, the MEMU area is still in transition, and portions including the MEMU area have yet to 65C-9 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 8 redevelop and produce the pedestrian -scale environment envisioned by the plan. To mitigate these Impacts, the applicant prepared a parking study that shows that providing valet service and/or a shuttle to major transit stops will reduce parking demand on the site by 150 parking spaces. The study also identifies the project and its proximity to transit will generate 105 new transit trips. Based on these factors and comparison against other major parking studies prepared by public agencies (San Diego, 2011 and Los Angeles, 2016), the parking study states that the project will have a peak demand of 349 vehicles for the residential component only and 399 parking spaces, including the commercial component. The report and staff analysis also show that the site lies along an express and a standard bus line that provide service approximately every 10 to 15 minutes during rush hour. These lines connect the project to points west (central Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Westminster), north (Tustin, Orange, and Placentia), and east (central Tustin). As a result of the parking reduction requested for a family-oriented project, staff coordinated with the applicant to explore alternate options for reducing parking demand on the project site. In response, AMG prepared a parking management plan and draft concept for parking valet service to nearby privately -owned parking lots and to operate a shuttle from the project site to various transit stops nearby. To defer the costs of monitoring the shuttle, AMG and the City will include terms in the Density Bonus Agreement to address operations of the shuttle and/or valet service. The Planning and Building Agency, in coordination with the Public Works Agency and City Attorney's Office, have worked with the developer to refine the deal points. After careful consideration, the City and developer have agreed to the deal points, which will be incorporated into the Density Bonus Agreement and subject to review after one year. These terms are described in the "Density Bonus Agreement Deal Points" section of this staff report. 6. Additional Density Bonus Law Considerations There are no historic resources in the Immediate vicinity that would be impacted by the proposed development. The project's design and operations, with the requested incentives/concessions and waiver, will not be detrimental to public health or safety as the project was reviewed by the City's Development Review Committee, which consists of representatives from Planning, Building Safety, Public Works, Housing, the City Attorney's Office, and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Should the Density Bonus Agreement application be approved, the agreement will be authorized by the City Council after the Planning Commission considers the application for the project as a whole, including the Site Plan Review and Density Bonus Agreement applications together. Density Bonus Agreement Deal Points The applicant is currently negotiating terms of the Density Bonus Agreement with the City's Community Development Agency (CDA). The terms will include deal points that are intended to provide community benefits and services to the residents of the development and the greater Santa Ana community, and to address operations and the parking shuttle and/or valet service. Community Benefits 65C-10 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 9 • AMG and the City will negotiate ongoing onsite supportive services, programs, and amenities • AMG must ensure routine maintenance, access for inspections, and 24-hour emergency management • The project will incorporate green building features • AMG will engage in local hiring and Santa Ana work/live preference • AMG will support crime -free housing policies • AMG and the City will refine financial reporting requirements Parking Shuttle and/or Valet Service • AMG must identify which parking lots have agreed to rent out parking spaces for the valet service • AMG must identify specific shuttle stop locations and must obtain approval from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to utilize its bus stops/pullouts as part of its shuttle service operations • All residents of driving age must disclose any owned, leased, or rented vehicles to be permitted to park on the project site or any properties as part of the valet or shuttle service • Each tenant must agree to terms prohibiting parking of his or her vehicle on any City -owned property o Every such agreement must contain penalties/consequences for violating the terms of the agreement o Terms shall also be incorporated into the City's housing plan or agreement for the project • The shuttle shall be operated by the developer and be at the developer's expense • The developer and/or management company shall maintain a copy of the shuttle's operating plan, including days, times, and frequency of service, with the City's Planning Division and Public Works Agency • The City can record a lien to collect any unpaid fines or monitoring costs • The City may require the developer and/or management company to include lease provisions that limit the number of vehicles a tenant may possess during the term of occupancy • The developer and/or management company shall work with the City's Planning Division, Public Works Agency, and City Attorney's Office to document and record the agreement Table 5: CEQA. Strategic Plan Alignment and Public Notification & Community Outreach CEQA, Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Community Outreach CEQA CEQAType Previously approved environmental document EIR No. 2006-01 Reason(s) In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended Exempt or Analysis action has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified EIR No.. 2006-01 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. All mitigation measures In EIR No. 2006-01 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been enforced and continue to apply to the proposed project. As required by the MMPR, a traffic impact analysis was performed to analyze any potential 65C-11 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 10 CEQA, Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification &Community Out7environmen changes in area traffic as a result of the proposed development. Thencluded that no additional significant impacts would trigger the requirement for advironmentalreview. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared tany impactsfrom developing a residential community near a major freeway. Thnds that nomitigation measures are required for the project due to its distance fanta Ana (I- 5) and Costa Mesa (SR -55) freeways. In considering additional ae applicant submitted a greenhouse gas study to Indicate that the project will not negatively impact greenhouse gas reduction goals. As outlined in this staff report, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the MEMU regulating plan. Further, it is consistent with the density bonus provisions outlined in the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance. The project site is located within city limits and is less than five acres in size. It is already in an urbanized setting surrounded by urban uses, and the project has not been identified as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Strategic Plan Alignment Goal(s) and Policy(s) Approval of this Item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal No. 3 (Economic Development) Objective No. 2 of creating new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Pian and Zoning Ordinance policies. The item also supports Goal 5 (Community Health, Livability, Engagement & Sustainability) Objective No. 3 to facilitate diverse housing opportunities and support efforts to preserye and Improve the livability of Santa Ana neighborhoods. Public Notification & Community Outreach Required Measures A public notice was posted on the project site on May 25, 2018. Notification by mail was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the ro ect site on May 25, 2018. Newspaper posting was published in the Orange County Reporter on May 25, 2018. The applicant held a Sunshine Ordinance community meeting on September 7, 2016 at the Saint Jeanne de Lestonnac School. Two members of the public attended: a schoolteacher from the facility and a representative from the City of Tustin. Both voiced their support for the project. No additional communications regarding the meeting were received after. The Lyon Street Neighborhood Association was contacted by phone to identify any areas Additional Measures of concern. At the time this report was printed, no issues of concern were raised regarding this application. Conclusion Based on the analysis provided within this report, adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review Application No. 2017-02 as conditioned. ,elKl Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP Senior Planner staff recommends that the Planning Commission No. 2017-09 and Density Bonus Agreement 65C-12 SPR No. 2017-09/DBA No. 2017-02 May 21, 2018 Page 11 AP:sb SAPlanning COmmission=171SPR17-09 DBA17-02 AMG Assoc 2110 and 2114 E FIMLpc Exhibits 1. Resolution 2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial Map 3. Site Photo 4. Site Plan 5. Unit Floor Plans 6. Building Elevations 7. Building Perspectives 8. Landscape Plans 9. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report 10. Health Risk Assessment 11. Parking Study and Management Plan 65C-13 LS 6.04. 18 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2017-09 AS CONDITIONED AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT NO. 2017-02 AS CONDITIONED FOR A NEW MIXED-USE FAMILY AFFORABLE RENTAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2110, 2114, AND 2020 EAST FIRST STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Gene Broussard, representing Affordable Housing Land Consultants, Inc. (AMG & Associates, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant'), is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2017-09, as conditioned, and Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02, as conditioned, to allow the construction of a new mixed-use 552 -unit family affordable rental residential and commercial development at 2110 and 2114 East First Street. B. The Metro East Mixed Use overlay district was adopted in 2007 as a result of interest in developing mixed-use residential and commercial projects in its project area. The regulating plan, which establishes land uses and development standards, allows a variety of housing and commercial projects, including mixed-use residential communities, live/work units, hotels, and offices. C. The California Density Bonus law allows developers to seek increases in base density for providing on-site housing units in exchange for providing affordable units on site. To help make constructing on-site affordable units feasible, the law allows developers to seek incentives/concessions or waivers that would help the project be built without significant burden and without detriment to public health. D. On June 4, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed public hearing and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. E. Section 41-595.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a zoning district classification combined with an OZ suffix where the applicant wants to Resolution No. 2018-xa Page 1 of 11 LM apply the overlay zone, to ensure the project is in conformity with the overlay zone plan. F. The zoning designation for the subject property is Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ -1) in the Active Urban land use district. G. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this Site Plan Review pursuant to SAMC Section 41-595.5, have been established for Site Plan Review No. 2017-09 to allow construction of the proposed project. 1. That the proposed development plan is consistent with and will further the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 for the MEMU overlay district. The proposed development project will be compatible with Section 1.2 (Objectives) of the Metro East Overlay zone. The proposed project will contain 552 residential units (including one manager's unit) with a substantial (up to 10,000 square feet) commercial component. In addition, the project has been designed to feature a public plaza at its frontage on First Street, designed for temporary activities or kiosks. Constructing 552 units in the project area will add to the residential population in the area, stimulating demand for community -serving commercial uses such as restaurants, retail stores, dry cleaning services, and other similar uses. Finally, the project meets several General Plan goals and policies, including the Land Use Element's Goal 2 (to encourage diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences), Goal 4 (to provide adequate rental and ownership housing and supportive services), and the Housing Element's policies HE -2.3 and 2.4 (to encourage construction of rental housing, facilitate diverse types of housing, prices, and sizing). 2. That the proposed development plan is consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU overlay district. Although the project complies with the majority of development standards enumerated in the MEMU regulating plan, it does not meet the requirements for publicly - accessible open space, building setbacks, off-street parking, and driveway widths. These standards require approval of incentives/concessions and/or waivers through the Density Bonus Agreement application. Resolution No. 2018-xx Page 2 of 11 65C-15 3. That the proposed development plan is designed to be compatible with adjacent development in terms of similarity of scale, height, and site configuration and otherwise achieves the objectives of the Design Principles specified in Section 5 of the MEMU overlay district. The proposed development consists of a six -level project surrounded by multi-level and single -story structures. A single -level school campus abuts the site to the south, and single -story commercial development is to the north across First Street and east abutting the site. A midrise office building abuts the site to the west. The MEMU anticipates developments of this scale or larger in the "Active Urban" land use district, and this development would continue the scale of existing buildings in its immediate vicinity. Moreover, the project contains ground -floor non-residential (commercial and community) spaces at the front of the project, which will activate First Street. These spaces have been designed to feature ground -floor ceiling heights between 12 and 22 feet tall, enhancing the urban, mixed-use atmosphere envisioned by the MEMU overlay district. 4. That the land use uses, site design, and operational considerations in the proposed development plan have been planned in a manner that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as specified in Section 7 of the MEMU overlay district. The proposed project is consistent with the scale and intensity of projects anticipated in the original MEMU EIR (EIR No. 2006-01) and in the MEMU overlay district regulating plan. No negative impacts from noise, air quality, aesthetics, or traffic are expected except for temporary impacts arising during construction of the project. The site's design is intended to activate its frontage on First Street by providing flexible community areas that can be programmed with activities or temporary uses, and the landscape palette has been carefully selected to complement existing landscape patterns of the surrounding land uses. H. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which must be established in order to grant this Density Bonus Agreement pursuant to SAMC Section 41-1607, have been established for Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 to allow construction of the proposed project: 1. That the proposed development will materially assist in accomplishing the goal of providing affordable housing Resolution No. 2018-xx Page 3 of 11 65C-16 opportunities in economically balanced communities throughout the city. The proposed development will provide 552 affordable rental family housing units, contributing toward the City's rental housing stock to serve the needs of diverse and underserved populations. The area in which the project is proposed, the Metro East Mixed Use overlay district, currently contains one market -rate mixed use community and another entitled market -rate mixed use community. The construction of this project will contribute toward an economically balanced community by providing housing for different demographic and income levels in an area rich with employment opportunities, commercial development, and market -rate housing. 2. That the development will not be inconsistent with the purpose of the underlying zone or applicable designation in the general plan land use element. The project site is located in an area already identified in both the City's Zoning Code (the Metro East Mixed Use overlay district) and General Plan (the Land Use and Housing elements) for new residential communities. Moreover, the proposed density of 80 units per acre is consistent with the anticipated development intensity of 90 units per acre in the General Plan Land Use element, and is below the density bonus provisions in the California Density Bonus Law for family-oriented projects (35 -percent density bonus) and in the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (35 - percent density bonus). 3. That the deviation is necessary to make it economically feasible for the Applicant to utilize a density bonus authorized for the development pursuant to section 41-1603. The proposed project requires three deviations through incentives/concessions: publicly -accessible open space, building setbacks (side and rear), and offsite parking, as well as one deviation through a waiver in driveway width. The four deviations are described as follows: First, the MEMU regulating plan requires that publicly - accessible open space be provided along main street -facing facades. Because the project has frontage on only one street, meeting this requirement would result in the building being pushed back significantly from First Street and would Resolution No. 2018-xa Page 4 of 11 65C-17 render almost the first 1/4 of the site's depth unusable for building area, resulting in the developer having to construct a parking structure or subterranean parking, significantly increasing building costs. Moreover, in order to maintain the current proposed unit count, the developer would be required to construct additional levels, resulting in a different type of construction (steel-frame/Type I versus wood/Type III), further increasing development costs. If the publically accessible open space standard were applied as written, the result would be a significant loss of units and parking area. Pushing the building back would also reduce the contribution to creating a more urban, walkable environment. The Applicant intends to compensate for this reduction by providing a greater average square footage of private/common open space per unit on the project site. Second, for a project of this size and construction type, OCFA requires 360 -degree circulation on the project site with minimum 20 -foot fire lanes. The addition of landscaping and walkways around the project perimeter results in the project not being able to meet the maximum 10 -foot side yard requirement. Further, for a project of this height, the MEMU requires a 100 -foot rear yard setback. In order to maintain the current proposed unit count, the developer would be required to construct additional levels, resulting in a different type of construction (steel-frame/Type I versus wood/Type III), further increasing development costs. Implementing this standard as written would result in the building being set back an additional 55 feet from the rear lot line, resulting in a significant loss of units and parking area. Third, constructing 2.0 parking spaces per residential unit on the project site would require the developer to construct an additional level of parking either above- or below -grade, resulting in increased construction costs and/or a loss of an entire level of residential units. Staff has analyzed the proposed project and finds that there is potential that the project and neighborhood may be impacted by the reduced parking. The City has identified the MEMU area for high- intensity, mixed use development in order to reduce demands for parking and traffic impacts. However, the MEMU area is still in transition, and portions including the MEMU area have yet to redevelop and produce the pedestrian -scale environment envisioned by the plan. To mitigate these impacts, the applicant prepared a parking study that shows that providing valet service and/or a shuttle to major transit stops will reduce parking demand on the site Resolution No. 2018-xx Page 5 of 11 65C-18 by 150 parking spaces. The study also identifies the project and its proximity to transit will generate 105 new transit trips. Based on these factors and comparison against other major parking studies prepared by public agencies (San Diego, 2011 and Los Angeles, 2016), the parking study states that the project will have a peak demand of 349 vehicles for the residential component only and 399 parking spaces, including the commercial component. The report and staff analysis also show that the site lies along an express and a standard bus line that provide service approximately every 10 to 15 minutes during rush hour. These lines connect the project to points west (central Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Westminster), north (Tustin, Orange, and Placentia), and east (central Tustin). Finally, the Applicant is proposing valet service to nearby parking lots and a parking shuttle to major transit stops to further reduce the demand for on-site parking. Fourth, if the project was designed with narrower driveways, the driveways would not conform to minimum standards established for fire ingress/egress by OCFA and for trash truck ingress/egress established by the Public Works Agency and Waste Management, the current waste collector contracted by the City. As a result, a waiver from the maximum driveway width is required. The three requested concessions could be avoided if the project were constructed using a different site plan and building type. If the project were designed with a multi-level parking and/or subterranean parking structure, or if the applicant used different building materials (non-combustible, Type 1) to construct a taller project, additional area on site would become available to provide open space and parking, and to meet the required rear yard setback. However, these changes would increase development costs, resulting in the affordable housing project becoming financially infeasible due to the significantly -increased financial implications of using Type I construction. The Applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Santa Ana, its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, claims, actions or proceedings that may be brought arising out of its approval of this project, and any approvals associated with the project, including, without limitation, any environmental review or approval, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence of the City of Santa Ana. Resolution No. 2018 -XX Page 6 of 11 65C-19 Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended action has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified EIR No. 2006-01 as per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA guidelines. All mitigation measures in EIR No. 2006-01 and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been enforced and continue to apply to the proposed project. As required by the MMPR, a traffic impact analysis was performed to analyze any potential changes in area traffic as a result of the proposed development. The study concluded that no additional significant impacts would trigger the requirement for additional environmental review. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to identify any impacts from developing a residential community near a major freeway. The HRA finds that no mitigation measures are required for the project due to its distance from the Santa Ana (1-5) and Costa Mesa (SR -55) freeways. In considering additional analysis, the applicant submitted a greenhouse gas study to indicate that the project will not negatively impact greenhouse gas reduction goals. As outlined in the accompanying staff report, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the MEMU regulating plan. Further, it is consistent with the density bonus provisions outlined in the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance. The project site is located within city limits and is less than five acres in size. It is already in an urbanized setting surrounded by urban uses, and the project has not been identified as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public hearing, hereby approves Site Plan Review No. 2017-09 and Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 as conditioned in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated May 14, 2018, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: 65C-20 Resolution No. 2018-xa Page 7 of 11 Mark McLoughlin Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Bv: Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2018-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on June 4, 2018. Date: Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 65C-21 Resolution No. 2018-xx Page 8 of 11 Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No 2017-09 and Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 Site Plan Review No. 2017-09 and Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 are approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval: The Applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan review. The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan review. A. Planning Division All proposed site improvements must conform to the Development Project Review approval of DP No. 2016-33. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for above -ground construction, the Applicant shall record terms into an agreement with the City of Santa Ana detailing operations of the proposed shuttle and/or valet service. The terms and contents of the agreement may be included in any required density bonus and/or inclusionary housing agreement and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, Public Works Agency, and City Attorney's Office prior to recordation. Upon review and approval, proof of the agreement's recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. After 12 months of operation, the Applicant shall prepare a review of the operations detailed in the agreement, including the shuttle and/or valet services, for review and analysis by the City, after which modifications and/or alternate parking reduction strategies will be considered if necessary. Any modifications and/or alternate parking reduction strategies will be reviewed by the Planning Manager, after which a determination will be made if the agreement can be amended by the City Manager or his designee, or if the Planning Commission must review any new proposed conditions of approval. The initial "deal points" are outlined below: • AMG must identify which parking lots have agreed to rent out parking spaces for the valet service • AMG must identify specific shuttle stop locations and must obtain approval from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) if it wishes to utilize its bus stops/pullouts as part of its shuttle service operations Resolution No. 2018-xx Page 8 of 11 65C-22 • All residents of driving age must disclose any owned, leased, or rented vehicles to be permitted to park on the project site or any properties as part of the valet or shuttle service • Each tenant must agree to lease terms prohibiting parking of his or her vehicle on any City -owned property o Every such agreement must contain penalties/consequences for violating the terms of the agreement o Terms shall also be incorporated for the project into the City's housing plan or agreement • The shuttle shall be operated by the developer and at the developer's sole expense • The developer and/or management company shall maintain a copy of the shuttle's operating plan, including days, times, and frequency of service, with the City's Planning Division and Public Works Agency • The City can record a lien to collect any unpaid fines or monitoring costs • The developer may require include lease provisions that limit the number of vehicles a tenant may possess during the term of occupancy • The developer and/or management company shall coordinate with the City's Planning Division, Public Works Agency, and City Attorney's Office to document and record the agreement 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for above -ground construction, the Applicant shall provide the City of Santa Ana a copy of a recorded easement for reciprocal access (ingress, egress, and fire access) for any and all proposed shared drive aisle(s) between the project site and the adjacent property to the west. 4. Any amendment to this site plan review, including modifications to approved materials, finishes, architecture, site plan, landscaping, unit count, mix, and square footages must be submitted to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or if the site plan review must be amended. 5. A residential property manager shall be on site at all times that the project is occupied and the developer and onsite management shall at all times maintain a 24-hour emergency contact and contact information on file with the City. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from public and courtyard areas. A final detailed amenity plan must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits. The plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for amenity, plaza, or courtyard areas as well as an installation plan. The exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval by the Planning Division. Resolution No. 2018-xx Page 9 of 11 65C-23 8. Prior to installation of landscaping, the Applicant shall submit photos and specifications of all trees to be installed on the project site for review and approval by the Planning Division. Specifications shall include, at a minimum, the species, box size (24 inches minimum), brown trunk height (10 -foot minimum), and name and location of the supplier. 9. After project occupancy, landscaping and hardscape materials must be maintained as shown on the approved landscape plans. 10. A Resident Storage Plan shall be provided for the project prior to occupancy. Storage shall be available at no cost to the residents. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction schedule and staging plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The plan shall include construction hours, staging areas, parking and site security/screening during project construction. Resolution No. 2018-xa Page 10 of 11 65C-24 5/3/2018 SPR 2017-09 & DBA 2017-02,_"AMG First Point" I I I Gc C1 `' C51 1 � 1 1� Flit �i QI .y` ' S Santa Ana Boundary Zoning Zpnc ecudpUpnIR �L3c . rc ercalm.:zpm cu,..lh_syy .fes}, f tt' 1 pri .} ._ .p L ! C r al t a ♦ .� _ W4 I aiI4lfMn R' f .■4 V Ir al `_�I`�—y� • F ©�..r Y._I�f°Z Al 4-- D Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Zoning a () http://apps.spaflalstmam.com/production/dashboard/8/9/0/CurrentBuil6rcm mi ,'t " 71 55 m ;,m a nlnital Man Pn fnH All dnhN 4n 11- 1/1 mm "V o 9 g- �_ rt a 4 its tt � 4 4 mm 65C-27 r 0 M w --= z In _w o list' ${ a !Fill z LU UGH Q a J CL : � W; k LU N o Z O . O Z <U)R QV3 z Zi— m Qo D V))o 0 m Q = O a C W F-- > > CL w i m a U O m O O w O J m;t Z J w ; g V) - ( LJJ N F -w Q U �l LU W o V N �j n f — . a' r C45 n I' F� W 'n�a 1v1 ¢ >6 0 CN a�w ƒ $ 65C-28 ƒ |� (� ) § R ■ . ,M ■ § ) 65C-29 & / ) ) / \ \!| � ti I, \U2) \ 7 0| y « m! 040 ) / /[ ] $| \ CL2 0 / o a § F- LU U 2 u / LU 2 F- F— CL < * U /O.® a (.00P7 eV)3m m <¥/ C45j! /fou ®/ G < )2 65C-30 W F U W a N Lu W IL J Q H CL W ,I 0 VU z J W J Q u �} �m O ftf U` �❑^�Jt a dN (n > Wo 3 Q U W F U W a N Lu W IL J Q H CL W ,I 0 VU z J W J Z W O ftf < Q 3 Q U o w 0, z Cn o d 0 (n O AM w Q " m f- ^ NIL V o W Lu ^Op V `j _c N Q�,u 65C-31 a E9I�ff 0 Lu Ze Ia Z O a Q co QU U Z� w ao LU CL Q: J Q H LU W U z O U VU CW J ILLJ— O N w QU LU 0 LU ° cry s a uJ N /� LLI a ,o W r `45P K (^2Q N v `mU > 6 (V M M N Q�w 1R. LIM ®1_ ® ja min i ■1 ® I "m m I.e E n IU t:. 13 f f O1 OIr) I I • D pyE-P 4 1R. LIM ®1_ ® ja min i ■1 ® I "m m I.e E n IU t:. ft a f O1 OIr) I I • D pyE-P 4 F VJ.NVS (j�--�j"-j�I€=e �5�5' Hg 133T1.LS15?ild3bllZ 5NV9d 1N3VIN21o�1WS)'VMd 1-i3AOadW1 McIV N`d'1 � �,rI� � p'�i Lg b' 1"Id 15V2 VHV 'm VaIV WOIN3S 13 S1N3W1TJ32�LS a Too a I�a I J JJtJJLS f� eePevvveee kk lfa . all y9not i�I d , al kko o ........... fill,t , ll�ta `Ill ' e 9 id #�};�1 + }j¢ggl `i �' as Ill hill Duo n r d El l# d 9 lPt�1 '� l :2 g Ma . aaa0 ilea .d Baa Elea Ad �. e e a e e c e.eeececeaFe tnaeaaassaS �,.., i�!TI IT'� } �}I�r-F TF FL i--�.. LJ�1.1�L 171i�" l.f 1T s F2 T? (' �° . Il �_aia�i � •—;__ I + { _m WII 1I�. a 7 TUI 00 L IMI ui A U d d c U 65C-33 • * �'®9 �` VINAJOdIlV7 VNV V1NV5 133?J15152!1� 3 6112 SNV�d r�l •�r � p°'° "nt, �`•b3 �+ {�'b�: � aga� 1N3W3I.0?ldWl 3dV75QNVl !41 g 51N3W1?JVdV TJOIN25 13�b15 152114 15V3 9WV � j a!71 a � 1 S3 �i•'„`," '` 0 �aaaaG ! � 1 lla I I i n o- L fid. A '.1 401 vE � s - VI � 1 a �.• i} /S4�' rli Q Q 1• Q m ❑ U a 3 e ' 'U Q OW w _ .41 1 �lian$pit n � t � yCy 99 gggg pp yy qggq u W �.� ... _ 1 ^v.:; x a a ae • .e s. . u dda e a ee Q�Q I a Q 3. I I❑ 5 W I � I �- 5 a Q ZQJ ❑ Q W m p W COQU W 0 �,___I___I_ e �3p4 i■9�3 $ jIgg it ne se w ipip �� gg �S .lZ Q 2 Z g�5y65�j4��2 b y@�p@d�dy�y J 22��JggB[�9 �0i•Ey [[n ��gaygj��YG®� r m: dsa a e ade X34 a e o a a Exhibit 9: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report is available for review at the following locations: http://santa-ana.org/pba/planning/AMGmixedCommunity.asp Planning and Building Agency Planning Counter, First Floor 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 65C-36 Exhibit 10: Health Risk Assessment is available for review at the following locations: http://santa-ana.org/pba/planning/AMGMixedCommunity.asp Planning and Building Agency Planning Counter, First Floor 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 65C-37 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 2, 2018 Alexis Gevorgian AMG Associates, LLC. 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1014 Encino, CA 91436 Re: Parking Demand Analysis for the 2114 E. 15t Street Apartments INTRODUCTION This report describes the parking demand characteristics of the proposed mixed-use project located at 2114 E. 1 s' Street in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of this report is to present the expected parking demand of the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 2114 E. 1st Street Apartments is proposed to be a mixed use project with 552 apartment units over ground floor retail and a 620 space parking garage. There will also be 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail space. The project is located on the southeast corner of 1st Street and East 1st Street in the City of Santa Ana. The site is currently occupied by a used car dealership several other businesses in a single store office building. TRANSPORTATION SETTING Surrounding Land Uses - The project would be located within walking distance of shopping, restaurants, and a number of major employers such as Caltrans, the Social Security Administration, Kaiser Permanante's Offices, the Tustin Rehabilitation Hospital, and the Orange County Global Medical Center. Roadway Network - The primary roadway that would be affected by this project is 1st Street. 16t Street is a six -lane street along the frontage of the project, and changes to have two eastbound lanes just east of the project site. It is an arterial street with traffic signals at all major intersections but no parking is permited in the vicinity of the proposed project. E. 15t Street is a two-lane private dead end road that currently has on -street parking that is designated as being restricted to authorized vehicles only. Please note that E. 1st Street is within the boundary of the project site and would be realigned as part of the proposed project. Transit Service - There is bus transit service provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) adjacent to the project. Route 64 operates next to the project site with connections to other bus routes at Larwin Square in Tustin and at the Westminster Mall in EXHIBIT 11 1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 • Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • 925.945.0201 • Fax: 925.945.7966 65C-38 Page 2 of 8 — 2114 E. 16' Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Huntington Beach. Please note the nearest bus stops are less than a block from the site. About two blocks away are bus stops for Routes 71 and Express Route 64X. PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS This section discusses the estimated parking demand for the project. The proposed project is proposing to provide on on-site parking garage with 620 spaces. The amount of auto use would be less than a typical apartment project as a result of the affordability component of the project and the proximity to transit. As a result, it is expected some auto trips would be replaced by transit trips, pedestrian trips, and bicycle usage. There are a couple factors that the City could consider when reviewing parking demand for this project. These include: Residential Parking Demand for Transit Oriented Developments - There is extensive evidence available that apartment units in transit oriented developments generate less parking demand than market rate units. 2. Affordable Housing Parking Generation Rates - There is also extensive evidence that affordable apartment units generate less parking demand than market rate units. Residential Parking Demand for Transit Oriented Developments - For a location in business district with bus transit access (and located near major employers), the parking demand would be less than the typical parking demand rate in the ITE Parking Generation Manual. The availability of transit, the use of bicycles, and the attractiveness of walking in the mixed-use business district environment would clearly result in reduced vehicle trip generation and an associated reduction in the need for parking. Since it is anticipated that a higher portion of all travel will occur by walking, bicycling, and through the use of public transit, it is expected that some of the apartment residents would not have personal vehicles. According to S.B. 743 a project's parking impacts are no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment if the project is a Transit Oriented Development (TOD). In the State of California a TOD is defined as a project that is 1) residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center project, and 2) located on an infill site within a transit priority area. A transit priority area is defined as being an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop. A major transit stop is defined as containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. In the case of the proposed project all of these criteria are met with one minor exception. Less than two blocks away there is a intersection of two major bus routes. While the overall frequency of the bus service at the intersection is 15 minutes one of the lines at the intersection (Route 71) operates on slightly higher service intervals of about 20 minutes. 65C-39 Page 3 of 8 — 2114 E. 1s' Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. The project is also proposing to meet the major transit stop requirement by providing a shuttle service to the Santa Ana Regional Transit Center. The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) is a major transfer center that provides access to regional Amtrak and Metrolink rail services as well as intercity and interstate bus transportation. The shuttle is planned to include service during the weekday peak commute hours with a maximum headway of 15 minutes using a 20 -passenger shuttle bus. Other than the project itself, the shuttle would include the following stops to serve residents: 1$' Street at Cabrillo Park Drive 18t Street at Lyon Street 15' Street at Grand Avenue 1 st Street at Standard Avenue Santa Ana Boulevard at Santiago Boulevard (The Santa Ana Regional Transit Center) Grand Avenue at Santa Ana Boulevard Based on data from MTC's travel survey for projects within 1 mile of a train station, during the peak commute hours the project would be forecast to generate approximately 105 transit trips. However, please note that that it is forecast that approximate three quarters of these trips would be expected to use the planned shuttle service and the other 25% of these transit trips would be made via existing public transit in the area. Again, please note that there are public bus stops located less than a block from the site. With the addition of the shuttle service to the SARTC the project will meet the definition of a transit oriented development (subject to City approval) and, as such, a reduction in the parking demand from the project would be forecast to occur. Based on a detailed analysis of 12 large TOD housing projects the parking demand for the proposed project, when compared to a project without any major transit stops nearby, would be expected to be reduced by a minimum of 23%. Therefore, the addition of the shuttle service is estimated to equate to a minimum reduction in parking demand of approximately 150 parking spaces.' In addition, the detailed surveys of TOD housing projects have found that the peak parking demand recorded at TOD sites has been found to be a minimum of 45% less than the peak parking demand rates for apartments published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).2 For the proposed project (ITE Land Use Code 222) the peak parking demand for non-TOD sites is 1.37 vehicles per unit. Therefore, based on surveys of similar TOD apartment projects the parking demand is forecast to be approximately 0.62 vehicles per unit, meaning the parking demand for the residential portion of the project could reduced for transit access by as much as 414 spaces (i.e. the Statewide Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Study Special Report — Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities, Business, Transporation, and Houiing Agency of the Calfiornia Department of Sacramento, CA, February, 2002. x Parking Generation at Transit -Oriented Developments: Five US Case Studies, Reid Ewing, College of Architecture and Planning, Univerisyt of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, November 2016. 65C-40 Page 4 of 8 — 2114 E. 161 Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. maximum potential reduction). Please note these reductions are based on market rate units near major transit stops but do not account for the affordability component of the project. Affordable Housing Parking Demand -There is extensive evidence that trip generation and parking demand at affordable housing projects is substantially less than would occur at a comparably sized market -rate apartment project. The following is a summary of some available data on this subject: City of Los Angeles Affordable Housing Survey- For example, a 2016 survey of affordable housing sites in the City of Los Angeles indicated the daily traffic generated at the sites was approximately 40% less than the ITE rates for market rate housing.3 Please note the City of Los Angeles allows up to a 50% reduction in parking for affordable housing projects. City of San Diego Affordable Housing Parking Study - The City of San Diego conducted an affordable housing parking study in 2011.4 About 2,750 surveys were distributed to 34 affordable housing developments. The survey found that parking demand for affordable projects is about one half of typical rental units in San Diego; almost half the units surveyed had no vehicle. The survey indicated that in urban areas (defined as somewhat conducive to walking with moderate transit access) affordable housing units had an average of 0.5 vehicles per household. Please note that affordable housing in central business district (core) area for very low income households were found to be as low as 0.1 cars per household. Assembly Bill No. 744 Planning and Zoning: Density Bonuses - It is also important to note that A.B. 744 allows developers of low income housing types to request lower parking minimums. Based on A.B. 744 it appears that mixed -income housing within ''/z mile of a well -served transit stop and with at least 11 percent of the units set aside for extremely low-income residents or 20 percent set aside for low-income residents theoretically requires only 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom. According to the California Public Resources Code a well -served or "major transit stop" means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. In the case of the proposed project there is a intersection with two major bus routes located much less than a '/z mile from the site (about 700 feet from the site). At the nearby intersection of 161 Street and N. Tustin Avenue Route 64 and 64X operate with approximately 15 minute headways and Route 71 operates with approximately 20 minute headways. In addition the project is also proposing to provide shuttle service to the Santa Ana Regional Transporation Center with 15 minute headways. This proposed service is decribed in more detail below. It should also be noted that ' Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, CA, December, 2016. 4 Affordable Housing Parking Study, City of San Diego, San Diego, CA, February, 2011. 65C-41 Page 5 of 8 — 2114 E. 1$1 Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. to meet the requirements of A.B. 744 projects must provide unobstructed access to the transit stop that they are near, meaning that a resident must be able to access the stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. Based on our review this requirement would be met since there is an existing sidewalk between the project site and the transit stop in question. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON PARKING Table 1 presents a summary of the project's parking requirements and forecast demand based on the City's code, the ITE parking generation rates, the referenced transit oriented development studies, and also the affordable housing surveys. The residential parking provided would be forecast to generate a demand for about 756 spaces based on the unadjusted ITE parking rates.' This publication indicates that market rate apartments (ITE Land Use Code 222) typically generate a maximum peak parking demand of 1.37 vehicles per unit. Table 1 Off -Street Parking Calculations Data Source Land Use Size Parking Ratio Required Spaces City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Apartments 552 units 1.25 690 City of Santa Ana Municipal Code Retail 10,000 sq. ft. 5 50 Municipal Code Parking Requirement 740 ITE Parking Demand Rates Apartments 552 units 1.37 756 ITE Parking Demand Rates Retail 10,000 sq. ft. 2.55 26 ITE Unadjusted Demand Estimate 782 Transit Oriented Development Rates Apartments 552 units 0.62 342 ITE Parking Demand Rates Retail 10,000 sq. ft. 2.55 26 TOD Parking Demand Estimate 368 Affordable Housing Rates Apartments 552 units 0.5 276 ITE Parking Demand Rates Retail 10,000 sq. ft. 2.55 26 Affordable Housing Parking Estimate 302 2010. ' Parking Generation Manual, 41 Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C., 65C-42 Page 6 of 8 — 2114 E. 15' Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Based on the most recent data available from the City of Los Angeles affordable housing projects generate about 40% less vehicles per day than a typical market rate apartment building. Based on this data the residential portion of the project would have an estimated parking demand of approximatrely 302 vehicles. Therefore, with the proposed shuttle service to meet the transit access requirements the City could consider making the findings that allowing the project to proceed with 0.5 spaces per unit is reasonable and appropriate. This could be based, in part, on the fact that this is an affordable housing project in a location within walking distance of bus transit and major employment centers. If this were approved, the following is a calculation of the potential parking requirements: 552 units times 0.5 spaces per unit equals 276 parking spaces. Including the 50 spaces required for the retail space would increase the net total parking requirement for the project 326 parking spaces. The justification is as follows: Transit Services - There are existing bus stops less than one block from the site that provide direct access other regional bus routes in the area. Route 64 operates next to the project site with connections to other bus routes at Larwin Square in Tustin and at the Westminster Mall in Huntington Beach. About two blocks away are bus stops for Routes 71 and Express Route 64X. In addition to these services the project is proposing to provide free on -demand shuttle service to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center for residents that would operate on 15 minute headways during the peak commute hours. The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) provides access to regional Amtrak and Metrolink rail services and also intercity and interstate bus transportation. City of Santa Ana General Plan Policies - The City of Santa Ana has a number of policies that support a reduction in on-site parking. These include policies related to the goals of increasing_ the use of public transit, limiting increases in vehicular traffic, improving air quality, limiting fuel consumption, and improving conditions for pedestrians in the area. Each of these factors, goals, and objectives is described in the City's General Plan. These policies could provide additional support for making the findings to approve the project with reduced parking. Assembly Bill No. 744 - The proposed project is within two block of an intersection of two major bus routes, which is clearly much less than the typical Y: mile requirement for a project to be considered a transit oriented development. At the nearby intersection of 1St Street and N. Tustin Avenue Route 64 and 64X operate with approximately 15 minute headways and Route 71 operates with approximately 20 minute headways. However, it is important to note that this project will provide additional demand for bus service in the area and the applicant has said they plan to open a discussion with OCTA about increasing the frequency of service. As mentioned above, the project is also proposing to provide shuttle service to the Santa Ana Regional Transporation Center with 15 minute headways. This would provide a direct and convienient connection to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center. The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) provides extensive access to numerous transit services including Amtrak and Metrolink rail services, multiply OCTA bus routes, airport and taxi services, and also intercity and interstate bus transportation. 65C-43 Page 7 of 8 — 2114 E. 15' Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project qualifies as a transit oriented development due to its close proximity to a major transit stop where two major bus routes intersect. While the applicant is expecting to open discussions with OCTA about increasing the frequency of bus service near the project site, the project will not rely on this to achieve alternative transportation goals. To ensure the project fully qualifies as a transit oriented development the project is also proposing to provide residents with private shuttle service to the Santa Ana Regional Transporation Center with 15 minute headways. If the City were to allow the applicant to provide 0.5 spaces per unit, as specified by A.B. 744, the parking required for the project would theoretically be 326 parking spaces. Please note this includes the 50 spaces required for the retail uses. The parking demand can also be estimated based on the 4th Edition of the ITE Parking Generation Manual. Since the project is two blocks from a major transit stop and will be providing free shuttle service to the SARTC, the proposed project would be expected to have a 23% reduction to the ITE parking demand.' In addition, an additional reduction to the ITE forecasts can be applied due to the fact that the entire project would be restricted to residents making 60% or less of the Area Median Income (AMI). The City of San Diego's 2011 Affordable Housing Parking Study found that parking demand for affordable housing projects is about one half of typical rental units in San Diego and almost half the units surveyed had no vehicle. However a more conservative esimate comes from the 2016 survey of affordable housing sites conducted by the City of Los Angeles. This study determined that the number of vehicles generated by affordable housing projects is about 40% of what is generated by comparably sized market rate projects. Using the assumptions above the residential portion of the project is forecast to have an unadjusted peak parking demand of 349 vehicles. Including the 50 spaces required for the retail space would increase the forecast total peak parking demand for the project to 399 parking spaces. Please note that if it were conservatively assumed that all the affordable housing sites surveyed in the Los Angeles study also had excellent transit access (and the separate reduction for transit access was eliminated from the parking calculations) then the project would have a forecast average peak parking demand of 504 vehicles. Based on the proposal to accommodate this demand with an on-site parking garage with 620 parking spaces our conclusion is that no parking impacts to the surrounding roadways or properties in the area would be anticipated. 65C-44 Page 8 of 8 — 2114 E. 15' Street Parking Demand Analysis Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this information. Sincerely, 5,3�L Stephen C. Abrams President Abrams Associates T.E. License No. 1852 65C-45 161 ® 1Q l z z A ry, ra, m m M ff� r t� _J I�rt c 7 m 4�• 1 rs a •1w 161 ® 1Q l z z A ry, ra, m m M ff� r t� _J I�rt c 7 m 4�• 1 rs S � � • ., 1Al. rr r r I x O a L ■ LL N i 0O LL -F-+ N-�e (uCU cu .� cu 0- -0 LL (a 65C-47 U) w co 0- 4-4c E cm (u K .c ■ mo V mo W }i 1..1.. CO A --i L AW •— r LL O a) L L ■ � LL U) L O Jc co Q 65C-48 co 4-1 (D N 0) 4-a c O U) tz M :..-- • �O:ea1Pa.�H1ed• j cu CL r n - ^yam 1 j9dmCD J U - ai ��. �y NJ yonis1 !S P,oauo9 r , x�i J11:,�Al Loc -L,% y* �•p r O f 1 yy� .5•':;j'�' ,��yJ'�s-i�l �7�7�i[��r R.F��" �+�T Lis�',+n.y',IIY vR � 1iilC, f?�Y f.'- ,. 1 "•,!�liti '� �`'��i i�Y�;� D ;1*'4?a��i ��rAkat {^-..:'��.�(n �"'!.;""i, *�� ,'�..,d i 3�� •tliYi ;`. j,�� ` <�L ]�"��J� :. <<j`%` `� 4-' W�m�li" � h�i��• .k 7+' � � ^.'•_. Ptd{ �+� �� ,...,�. a.a KC . t �IWx � . .. J .'�M•;r i N ON bbh Ave a. '_ j. , f lstlg5t ItMR trt{y'1�35 �t`si "'Dr 717 s �i r �� e£��' 1 ?3 ' S ;s"�'�N'C+i�i�� 4�t �. ^�=� .:�II.�.. `� ?I�!ittliliriM.: ■ i4te•}O TTS I.N -4. ki l'J ...i�qs� -yIQ•x, IL LO t1Q a IaRES"r C.-2T.^� rts ' S ..Z �t,.. „s., • W .�, ► SI ,t' 1. U) E i O W U) N J c .O co O CL c cu L. -f-j .0 Q O Z) n� W cn m cm �J co (u O N > U O �� ,C O Cn. 65C -50 R 0) c L a_ a 4-1 U) L - IL E ca 9 65C-51 6!!b.�4. j r r, t-7 2:17" 2:r X c: zw A JC� E a O I< e- t L 10, ca F =,•• T C CU 10LU � I CO G V D_ � Q � O C: r• Q LL l} mi r, t-7 2:17" 2:r X c: zw A JC� E a O e- L a ca F =,•• T C CU L � I CO G V C: � Q � O C: O Q LL Lo UI r- 0 �C +1 C ❑ e- L 7 F =,•• i o CU L � V C: �C +1 C ❑ 65C-54 cn LU U� Q L o CU V C: C: O Q LL 00 U 65C-54 cn LU U� Q �b G Q`2 u �7 g'y . N 0 V « o9+P n m: m o }� $ y m o xc�� v ate o J c6 o®®pmeeasec�❑ ® ©eeeeemeve eee a 7Gd�wb LM U)' C o a :3 U O Lo a _ U Lo O G a L r U ■� O c CD (D M o N c c6 o LP� a) LM U)' C o U :3 U O Lo _ U O L U c CD (D M o N c c6 E LP� a) c O Q U U U O 65C -55 L O s AW L C L 0 65C-56 a 4-1 E LL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA EXCERPT JUNE 4, 2018 BUSINESS CALENDAR 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2017-09 AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT APPLICATION NO. 2017-02 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE RENTAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE METRO EAST MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2110, 2114, AND 2020 EAST FIRST STREET, AMG & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS. Legal notice published in the Orange County Reporter on May 25, 2018 and notices mailed on May 25, 2018. All Commissioners disclosed that they discussed the project with the applicant. Senior Planner Pezeshkpour provided a project overview which included a project description, site description, project analysis and issue analysis. Discussion ensued regarding concessions/incentives, waivers, density bonus law, senior units and parking, valet and shuttle service, location of off-site parking lots, and parking requirements. The applicant spoke in support of the project; answered questions regarding valet and shuttle service, Crime -Free Program, bike storage, off-site parking spaces, parking management plan, and resident support services. Chairperson McLoughlin opened the.public hearing. The following spoke on the matter. • Dale Helvig spoke in opposition to the project; expressed concern regarding concessions, off-site parking, and the proposed valet service. • Boris Gresely, representative of the Carpenters and Contractors Cooperation Committee, stated that they will be monitoring the project to ensure that it complies with the law. There were no other speakers and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bacerra expressed concern with the ambiguous parking management plan and the parking study findings. Commissioner Verino expressed support for the project and moved to approve staffs recommended actions. Commissioner Nguyen introduced a friendly amendment to require a map of the off-site parking lot locations and number of off-site parking stalls. Commissioner Verino accepted the amendment. Chair McLoughlin hopes that staff will work with the developer to address any off-site parking issues. ATTACHMENT B 65C-57 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA EXCERPT RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2017-09 as conditioned. 2. Recommend that City Council adopt a resolution approving Density Bonus Agreement No. 2017-02 as conditioned with the recommendation that the Density Bonus agreement approved by City Council require a map of the off-site parking lot locations and number of off-site parking stalls before occupancy of the facility. MOTION: Verino SECOND: Mendoza VOTE: AYES: McLoughlin, Mendoza, Nguyen, Verino (4) NOES: Bacerra (1) ABSTAIN: None (0) ABSENT: Alderte, Contreras -Leo (2) 'Vote was taken by roll call. Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary 65C-58