Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOWERPOINT-75E75E 2525NORTHMAINSTREET MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL PROJECT CityCouncilPublicHearing February5,2019 ENTITLEMENTS EnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)  DevelopmentAgreement(DA)  GeneralPlanAmendment(GPA)  AmendmentApplication(AA)  2 DECISIONPROCESS PlanningCommission PublicHearing RecommendationforDenial Forward Recommendationto CityCouncil CityCouncil PublicHearing Introduction CityCouncil SecondReadingof Ordinances Ordinancesin effect 30 daysafteradoption 3 PLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION November26,2018–PlanningCommissioncontinuedthe  public hearing to January 14, 2019 and held a study session January 14, 2019 –Planning Commission public hearing, staff  recommended approval of the project 79membersofthepublicspoke(48opposed,30supported,  and 1 neutral) TheCommissionrecommendedthattheCouncildenythe  projectincludingEnvironmentalImpactReportNo.2018-01, Development AgreementNo.2018-01,GeneralPlan Amendment No.2018-06,andAmendmentApplicationNo. 2018-10 4 PLANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION TheCommissionexpressedconcernswith:  Increaseintraffic  Potentialparkingintrusionontheadjacentneighborhood  Massinganddensityoftheproject  Incompatibilitywiththesurroundingcommunity  Potentialadverseeffectsoftheprojectontheadjacent  neighborhood Lackofcommunitysupportforthedevelopment  Potentiallong-termimpactsassociatedwiththeproposed  development Motiontodenytheproject;voteof4:2:1abstained,  therebydenyingthe applicationtoallowthe construction ofa476-unitmulti-familyprojectat2525NorthMain Street 5 DEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL OriginalSubmittalStaffProposedProject 517units476units 88du/acre81du/acre 62–studios(12%)53 –studios (11%) 304–1bedrooms (59%)280–1bedrooms(59%) 108–2bedrooms(21%)114 –2bedrooms(24%) 43–3bedrooms(8%)29 –3bedrooms (3%) 910totalparkingspaces 952parkingspacecapacity (1.76 spacesperunit)(2.0 spaces perunit) 5-storiesand8-levelabovegrade 5-storiesand8-levelabovegrade parkingstructureparkingstructure 5storieswithmezzaninesadjacent Tieredheightadjacenttosingle-fami 6 ly •• to existing single-familydwellingsdwellingfrom2to5stories Courtyardsalongthe Northelevation • Eliminatedvehicularaccessalong • EdgewoodRoad ProposedsecondaryaccessatWalkie • Way/SantiagoParkDrive AERIALPHOTO CityofOrange Cityof SantaAna MainPlaceDrive eet y a r t w S road in a B M Project Site EdgewoodRoad 7 SITEPLAN 8 MAINSTREET 9 EDGEWOODROAD 10 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT AnEIRservedasan  informationaldocument TheEIRisbasedon:1) theState  CEQAGuidelines,2) CEQACase Law,3) State,Regional,and LocalThresholdsofSignificance TheEIRwaspreparedand  reviewedbytechnicalexperts, Citystaff,andtheCity'sCEQA attorneystoensureits determinationsareaccurateand complywiththerequirementsof CEQA 11 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT NoticeofPreparation&InitialStudy  February12,2018toMarch13,2018publicreview&comment  163writtencommentreceived  ScopingMeeting:March1,2018  DraftEIR:14 EnvironmentalTopics+ TechnicalStudies  August7,2018toOctober4,2018publicreview&comment  44writtencommentsreceived  FinalEIR  November15,2018released  Responsetocomments,revisionstotheDraftEIR;and  FindingsofFact,StatementofOverridingConsiderationfor  Aesthetics(significantandunavoidableimpact)andMitigation 12 MonitoringandReportingProgram CUMULATIVEPROJECTS PerCEQAandCEQAcaselaw,theEIRincludesalistofpast,  present,andreasonablyforeseeablecumulativeprojectsfor whichapplicationsweresubmittedtotheCityprior to publishing the NOP (February 2018) “Probablefutureprojects”iswhenadevelopmentapplication  hasbeenfiledandwhenactualenvironmentalreviewis underway(SanFranciscansforReasonableGrowthv.City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74) ApplicationsthatweresubmittedaftertheNOPwasreleased  (theMainPlaceMallTransformationProjectinMay2018),are thereforenotincluded TheTentativeTractMap(2002)fortheMallisnotareasonably  foreseeableproject.Buildingplanshavenotbeensubmitted (17years)anditwouldbespeculativetoassumethatitwould beunderconstructionoroperationalinthenextfewyears 13 THRESHOLDS BasedontheCEQAGuidelines,theEIRincludesspecific  ThresholdsofSignificance ACEQAThresholdofSignificancedefinesthelevelof  effectabovewhichtheLeadAgencyconsidersimpactsto be significant andrequire mitigation,andbelowwhichit willconsiderimpactstobelessthansignificant ThethresholdsaresetbyState,Regional,Locallevels  andare quantitative orqualitative standardsspecificto eachenvironmentaltopic Theareasofenvironmentalanalysisandidentificationof  potentialimpactsinthe EIRare fromAppendix Gofthe CEQAGuidelines(StateCEQAGuidelinesSection15065) 14 EXAMPLESOFTHRESHOLDS City of Santa Ana (Local)  Noise:animpactisconsideredsignificantifitexceedsnoisestandards  setbytheGeneralPlanNoiseElementTable1(exceeds65dBACNELfor outdoorareas/courtyards;orexceeds45dBACNELforindoorresidential uses) Regional  AirQuality:animpactisconsideredsignificantifemissionsexceed  thresholdsidentifiedbytheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict State  Biology:animpact isconsideredsignificant,iftheprojectimpacts  directlyorindirectlyacandidate,sensitiveorspecialspeciesas determinedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFish&GameorU.S.Fish& WildlifeService 15 PROJECTMITIGATION TopicSummaryof MitigationMeasure(CONSTRUCTION) AirQuality Construction equipmentmustcomplywithEPA/CARBemissionsstandards Biology Avoidvegetationclearingduringnestingseason (Feb.1through Sept.15)or conductanestingbirdsurveyprior toconstruction Hazards PrepareandsubmitaSoilManagementPlanwithprocedures forexcavation anddisposal ofonsitehazardousmaterials Noise 50-footlargeequipmentbufferfromtheeasternboundary Stagingareaawayfrom noise-sensitivereceivers Noise 11-foottemporaryconstructionnoisebarrieralongtheeastern boundary Tribal NativeAmericanIndianSensitiveTrainingpriortoconstruction Topic Summaryof MitigationMeasure(OPERATION) Aesthetics Protectthetreesalongtheeastern/southernboundarypertheArborist Report 16 Noise-UpgradedwindowsanddoorsforresidentialunitsalongMainSt.(allfloors) -Upgradedexteriordoorsfacing MainSt.(allfloors) -Residentialairvents orientedawayfromtheI-5freewayandMainSt.or a bafflewithintheattic STREETTREES EIR comments were received relating to existing street trees  along Edgewood Rd. Up to 3 street trees on Edgewood Rd. will be relocated or removed  to construct the fire access lane Statements related to “no street trees will be removed” in the  Final and Draft EIRs were an unintentional error and Chapter3 of the Final EIR was updated to correct these statements This does not result in the identification of any new, potentially  significant impacts that were not discussed in the Draft EIR EDGEWOODROAD 17 PROJECTACCESS Vehicularaccessisviaa  drivewayonNorthMainSt. Emergencyaccessonlyon  EdgewoodRd. SpecificDevelopmentprohibits  regularvehicularaccesson EdgewoodRd. AnalyzedintheEIR(Access  optionA)wouldnotexceed athresholdofsignificance 18 SECONDARYACCESS Secondaryaccessproposedvia  SantiagoParkandthetraffic signalatMainSt.and Walkie Way/SantiagoParkDr. AnalyzedintheEIR(Access  OptionB)would not exceed a threshold of significance Thisaccesswouldrequire  dedicationofnewparklandof equalutilityandvalue ReviewbytheCity’sParks&  RecreationDepartment,theOffice ofGrantsandLocalServicesand NationalParkService 19 TRAFFIC LevelofService(LOS) assesses  trafficcongestionatintersections androadways Ratioofvehiclesatanintersection  orroadwaysegmentvs.thevehicle capacityofthatintersectionor roadwaysegment (Vehicles/Capacity) LOSDistheadopted minimum  acceptableLOSforintersectionsand roadwaysegments(CirculationElement, 1998) LOSEistheadopted minimum  acceptableLOSformajordevelopment areas(CirculationElement,1998) 20 TRAFFIC The project wouldgenerate additionaltraffic,that wouldresult inan  increase invehicle trips onarearoadways Implementationofanyofthe access options wouldnot exceeda  thresholdidentifiedbythe CityorCaltrans The closure ofthe Caltrans/OCTA project toclose the HOVlane was  includedinthe EIRandTrafficStudy AMPeakHourPMPeakHour 7:00to 9:00a.m.4:00to 6:00p.m. LandUseInOutTotalInOutTotalDailyTrips Trip Generation Project46133179133862192,698 (496units) Existing Office811394157994791 (81,172SF) ReducedProject329312593601531,888 (347units) Office-Professional38762449713754463,774 zone(387,465SF) INTERSECTIONS&ACCEPTABLELOS TrafficStudyincluded: 16intersections;and  D EE EAA 10roadwaysegments  DAA A EA DA A A DA D AA D DD DAA GREEN=ACCEPTABLETHRESHOLD DDD EEE PURPLE=EXISTINGCONDITIONS BLUE=WITHPROJECT BB D 22 AA D NEIGHBORHOODROADWAYSEGMENTS D AA DD D D DDD AA AAAAAA 6intersections  10roadway  GREEN = ACCEPTABLETHRESHOLD PURPLE= EXISTINGCONDITIONS segments BLUE= WITHPROJECT 23 DEVELOPMENTAGREEMENTOVERVIEW 4yearswithuptotwo1-yearextensions  ExtensionssubjecttoCityManagerapprovaland  paymentof$50,000totheGeneralFund ParkImprovements  ParkSantiagoNeighborhoodBenefitPackage  ParkSantiagoNeighborhoodImprovements  HistoricDistrictApplication  PublicArt  Increaseparkingcapacityof2space/unit  Increase2and3bedroomunitsto30%  24 DA-PARK IMPROVEMENTFUNDS $1,400,000towardsenhancementofSantiagoPark  Futureimprovementsmayincludeirrigation,landscaping,security  lightingandbiketrailenhancements 25 DA-PARKSANTIAGO NEIGHBORHOODBENEFITPACKAGE Accesstoon-siteamenities  andAmazonlockers 24-hourrovingsecurity  55-yearperiodunless  Security determinedduringan Patrol Area annualreviewthattheterm shallendearlier 26 DA-PARKSANTIAGO IMPROVEMENTS Entrymonumentsat:  MainSt.&EdgewoodRd.  SantaClaraAve.&LincolnAve.  SantiagoSt.&17St.  th $100,000 formaintenance  of entrymonuments Replacementofnon-LED  streetlights/fixtures with LEDsthroughoutthe neighborhood Streetimprovementsat 3  locationsonEdgewoodRd. and/orBushSt. 27 DA-ADDITIONALTERMS HistoricDistrictApplication-Applicanttopayall  costsandexpensesassociatedwithhistoric districtapplicationupto$150,000 PublicArt-Equivalentto0.5%ofconstructioncost  oftheproject Parking-Increasenumberofspacesorcapacity  to2spacesperunit(mayusevaletparking) UnitMix-Increasethenumberof2&3bedroom  unitstoaminimumofthirtypercent(30%)ofthe project 28 DA-ADDITIONALTERMS ParkingManagementPlan  OvercrowdingMitigationImplementationPlan  LocalLive-WorkPreference  LocalSourcingPlan  29 GENERALPLANAMENDMENT Proposedamendmentto: DistrictCenter(DC)whichallows amaximumof90dwellingunits peracre 30 AMENDMENTAPPLICATION CreateSpecificDevelopmentNo.93 (SD93)withdevelopmentstandards StaffRecommended SpecificDevelopment DevelopmentStandards NumberofUnits476-Section3(a) UnitMix70%Studio&1 bedroom: 30%2 &3 bedrooms– Section3 (b) Parking Capacity2.0 perunit-Section10 DesignNorth BuildingElevation- Section12 (b)(3) 31 ECONOMICANALYSIS Afiscalandeconomicimpactanalysiswaspreparedby  RSG,Inc.in2017 analyzingthe 517-unitproject RSGanticipatesthefollowingfiscaloutcomesovera25-  yearforecastperiod: Approximately$33.5 millioninrevenueover25years($19millionin  2017$)totheCity’sGeneralFund Approximately$10.0 millioninexpendituresover25years($5.4  millionin2017$)fromtheCityGeneralFund ThenetnewGeneralFundrevenueisprojectedtobe  approximately$23.5 millionover25 years($13.6 millionin2017$) 32 FEES HabitableSquareFootageInclusionaryHousingFeeEstimatedFee 404,746$15 persquarefoot$6,071,190 StandardDevelopmentImpactFeeEstimatedTotal Sewer$365,147 CapitalFacilitiesCapacityCharges$1,106,433 (Orange CountySanitation District) Storm Drain$53,672 Traffic$629,283 Parks &Recreation$1,823,236 FireFacilitiesFee$819,020 SantaAnaUnifiedSchoolFees$2,386,928 EstimatedTotal$7,183,718 3 3 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS 34 PARKING Applicant is proposing 1.8 spaces/unit or 904 parking spaces  The DA and SD specify capacity of2.0 spaces/unit(952 spaces  for 476 units) Aparkingstudyoftwomulti-familyprojectsinSantaAnafoundthe  average parking demandwouldbe1.354spaces/unitor672spaces Similarmulti-familyprojectsintheCityhaveparkingratiosranging  from1.6to2.20parking spaces/unit ParkingParking RatioTandem Parking ProjectNameUnitsTotalResidentialGuestTotalResidentialNumberPercent TheMarke300660600602.22.026244% Nineteen01254559559-2.22.2-- Prisma(301)182364328362.01.823471% Elan6031,2091,209-2.02.0706% TheHeritage1,2212,2312,231-1.81.8-- TheMadison260468468-1.81.810422% 2525North Main Proposed4969047801241.81.815017% St. 4961,4201,136284 Required 2.86 bySAMC TheLine228359342171.61.5-35 - DENSITY Applicantisproposingadensityof84du/acreorFARof2.28  Staffrecommendsdensity of 81du/acre(476units)  MaximumFARoftheproperties tothenorth, westandsiteis1.5  Maximum density of the residential properties to the east and west  is7du/acre Multi-familyprojectsrangeindensityfrom49to94du/acre  ProjectNameDensityZoneStatus TheNineteen0149 du/acMetro-EastMixedUse OverlayConstructed TheLine58 du/acHarborMixedUse SpecificPlanUnder Construction TheHeritage65 du/acSpecificDevelopmentNo.88Under Construction TheMarke74 du/acSpecificDevelopmentNo.76Constructed 2525North Main St.81du/acSpecificDevelopmentNo.93Proposed Prisma(301)91 du/acSpecificDevelopmentNo.59Constructed TheMadison94 du/acMetro-EastMixedUse OverlayEntitled2018 Elan94 du/acMetro-EastMixedUse Overlay 6 3 Entitled2018 HEIGHT Proposed Height: residential 78’ and parking & amenity deck 95’  and tiered height on the east Professional zone: maximum 35’/3-stories and a maximum25’/2-  stories within the rear 50% of the lot adjacent to residential uses The single-familydwellings tothe southandeast are 1-story (18’)  The office building tothe northis 10-stories (160’)  The Discovery Cube to the west is110’  ProjectNameHeight TheMarke 5 levels TheNineteen01 5 levels Prisma(301) 5 levels TheLine 5 levels+ 6 levelsofparking TheHeritage5 levels 2525North Main St.(proposed) 5 levelswithmezzanines+8abovegradeand 1 subterraneanparking TheMadison 7 levels Elan 37 7 levels HEIGHTCROSSSECTION EASTSIDE WESTSIDE 38 HEIGHTCROSSSECTION SOUTHSIDE 39 HISTORICNEIGHBORHOOD Park Santiago is not a  registeredhistoricdistrict Atotalof32historichomes  aredocumentedinPark Santiago Approximately1,173homes  areintheneighborhood withthemajorityofthe homesbeingmorethan50 yearsold TheHistoricResources  Report(DEIRSection4.4) concludedthatthehistoric homesinParkSantiagowill nothavethesettingand feelingaspectsofintegrity reducedbytheproject 40 NEIGHBORHOODCHARACTER NeighborhoodCharacter  ParkSantiagoischaracterizedby1-storyand2-storydetached  single-familyhomeswithavarietyofarchitecturalstyles NorthMainStreetpertheGeneralPlanasanopportunityforthe  establishmentofacohesive,heightintense,mixedactivitycenter withastrongpresenceintheregion 41 PUBLICPARTICIPATION November15,2017–SunshineMeeting  March1,2018–ScopingMeeting  August7,2018–DraftEIRavailableforpublicreview  August 27,2018–PlanningCommissionstudysession&  EIRpublichearing November15,2018–FinalEIRavailableforpublicreview  November26,2018–PlanningCommissionstudysession  & continuedpublichearingtoJanuary2019 Severalmeetingswithplanningstaff,thedeveloperand  ParkSantiago/NorthSantaAnaPreservationAlliance (NSAPA)representatives 42 OPTIONFORDENIAL OPTION 1.Consistent with Planning Commission  recommendation, adopt a resolution of denialfor the following applications: Development Agreement No.2018-01;and  GeneralPlanAmendment No.2018-01;and  Amendment ApplicationNo.2018-10establishing Specific  Development No.93. 43 OPTIONFORAPPROVAL OPTION 2.Consistent with the staff recommendation of  approval, take the following actions: AdoptaresolutioncertifyingFinalEnvironmentalImpactReportNo.  2018-01(SCHNo.2018021031),adoptingenvironmentalfindingsoffact pursuanttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct,adoptinga StatementofOverridingConsiderations,adoptingMitigationMonitoring andReportingProgram;and AdoptanordinanceapprovingtheDevelopmentAgreementNo.2018-01;  and Adopt aresolutionapproving GeneralPlanAmendment No.2018-06;and  Adopt anordinance approving Amendment ApplicationNo.2018-10for  SpecificDevelopment No.93. 44 OPTIONTOCONTINUE OPTION 3.It is recommended that the City Council not open  the public hearing and direct staff to reschedule and publish notice of public hearing to a date specific. 45 STAFFTEAM Planning Staff:  CandidaNeal  VinceFregoso  SelenaKelaher  Environmental  Renee Escario,REConsulting  JenniferLynch,Best,Best&Krieger  Public Works Agency  WilliamGalvez  TaigHiggins  ZedKekula  RubenCastaneda  46 47