Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75AMitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:58 AM To: Trevino, Jay; Sonia R. Carvalho - SA Office ; O'Rourke, Kevin Cc: Kurita, Debbie; Mitre-Ramirez, Norma (NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org); Norma Orozco; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: AGENDA ITEM 75A - 250 N. Golden Circle & 1901 E 1 st Street Communication received on Agenda item 75A that will be entered into the record From: Magallon, Becky Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:10 AM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: FW: 250 N. Golden Circle & 1901 E 1st Street Communication regarding an agenda item. Becky .--? From: Dereck Blackman jmaiIto: dereck.@blackmanlawyers. com] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:35 PM To: Tinajero, Sal; Pulido, Miguel; Amezcua, Angelica; Benavides, David; Martinez, Michele; Reyna, Roman; Sarmiento, Vince; Fregoso, Vince Subject: 250 N. Golden Circle & 1901 E 1st Street Dear Mayor and Council Members: Please put in an CMU (Concrete Masonry Unit) for our protection with the difference in elevation between the two properties (250 N. Golden Circle & 1901 E 1st Street). Thank you." Dereck Blackman Office Manager THE BLACKMAN LAW FIRM 250 North Golden Circle Drive Suite 110 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-569-3000 Fax:714-569-3001 CM 09/16/13 Public Correspondence. 75A Mitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:56 PM To: Trevino, Jay; Carvalho, Sonia R.; O'Rourke, Kevin Cc: Kurita, Debbie; Mitre-Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: AGENDA ITEM 75A - Amendment to development agreement Attachments: Amendment to development agrreent.pdf The following communication has been received on Agenda Item 75A for your consideration. -- From: jackie kim [mailto:jbd9306(abyahoo coml Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 1:01 PM To: mpulidoCcbsanta-na.org; stinaj_ero(absanta-ang.org; Amezcua, Angelica; Benavides, David; Martinez, Michele; Reyna, Roman; Sarmiento, Vince Subject: Fw: Amendment to development agreement Hello Amendment to development agreement No. 2007-01.... Daniel Oh property Manager of SA Plaza LLC city of Santa Ana, Ca. Attached is the Amendment to development agreement ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: jackie kim <jbd9306 aayahoo.com> To: "mupulido(c1santa-ang.org" <mupulido@santa-ana.orq>; "stinajeronsanta-anq.org" <stinajero .santa-ang.org>; "AAmezcua(c-)santa-ana.org" <AAmezcua(a)_santa-ana.orq>; "d ben avides(cDsanta-ang.org" <dbenavidesno.santa- ana.orq>; "mmartinez@santa-ana.org" <mmartinez(d_)santa-ana.org>; "rreyna santa-ana.org" <rreyna(a.santa- ana.orq>; " " <vsarmientoasanta-ana.org> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:37 AM Subject: Amendment to development agreement Hello endment to development agreement No. 2007-01.... Daniel Oh property Manager of SA Plaza LLC city of Attached is the Am Santa Ana 9/16/2013 4:08 PM 4:08 PM September 11, 2013 The Honorable Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Pro Tern Sal Tinajero Councilperson Angelica Amezcua Councilperson P. David Benavides Councilperson Michele Martinez Councilperson Roman Reyna Councilperson Vincent E. Sarmiento City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Amendment to Development Agreement No. 2007-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2013-04 and Site Plan Review No. 2013-03 for a New Multi-family Residential Development at 1901 East First Street, ("Project") Dear Mr. Pulido and Councilmembers: I am the owner of the office complex directly east of the Project within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay. I have reviewed the proposed project. I have had many questions and concerns about the Project and especially the interface of the Project with my property. One of the primary objectives of the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay is to achieve a harmonious integration of the new with the existing. Regarding this integration objective one significant issue remains that I request the City Council resolve. I am concerned with the townhomes that line the parking structure and face into the office complex parking lot and trash enclosure, I am concerned with safety, noise and visual impact between our properties. I have suggested trees be planted along that boundary line, but I am told that the edge of the Fire Lane is right at the property line, causing an unsafe condition. In addition there is a significant grade difference for part of the applicant's east property line making an even more dangerous situation. We request that the City Council add a condition of approval to require a landscaped eight-foot masonry wall located the entire length of the eastern edge of the Project site. We believe this will provide a more harmonious integration between the proposed Project and the existing office complex and address the safety, noise and visual impacts. If you have any questions or would like to meet with me, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of our request. ke r le y , L Mitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:53 PM To: Trevino, Jay; Carvalho, Sonia R.; O'Rourke, Kevin Cc: Kurita, Debbie; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma; Mitre-Ramirez, Norma Subject: AGENDA ITEM 75A - Submissions for Tonight's Council Meeting: 1901 E. First Street Attachments: #5648323_ v1_ Lyon - Santa Ana - Suggested Supplemental Findings - Ordinance 091613.docx; #5648327 v1_Lyon - Santa Ana - Suggested Supplemental Findings for Resolution - 091613-2.docx City Council and Staff, The following has been submitted by applicant for your review and consideration. Please contact Kevin or Jay if you have any questions. From: Paone, Tim [maiIto: tpaone(cbcoxcastle.coml Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:13 PM To: Hodge, Ryan Cc: Huizar, Maria Subject: Submissions for Tonight's Council Meeting: Agenda Item 75A - 1901 E. First Street Ryan, pursuant to our discussion last week, we are submitting suggested supplemental findings for both the Ordinance and the Resolution for the 1901 E. First Street project. Ideally, if staff views these supplemental findings as helpful and appropriate, the Council would consider and adopt these findings tonight. By copy of this email, I am also delivering this to the City Clerk to assure that it is in the record. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks. COX CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP TIM PAONE Orange County m Los Angeles ® San Francisco Professional Profile 19800 MacArthur Boulevard. Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92612 Proiect Experience 949-260-4655 (Direct Line) Cox Castle Website tpaonefcoxcastle.com Assistant & Paralegal: Sudha Subramanian ® 949-829-4720 PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRGiL'NI MF BEFORE MINTING THIS E-MAIL 9/16/2013 4:05 PM 4:05 PM SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS TO ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MAKES THE FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, DETERMINATIONS, AND DECLARATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ORDINANCE NO. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND LYON HOUSING (FIRST STREET) XLVIII, LLC: 1. Entering into this First Amendment to Development Agreement would provide the City with extraordinary and significant benefits that are of regional significance, relate to existing deficiencies in public facilities, require the owner of 1901 East First Street to contribute a greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and represent benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the development process. Specifically: a. This Agreement is intended to assure adequate public facilities at the time of development. b. This Agreement is intended to assure development in accordance with City's General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and the Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. c. Owner is required by existing City regulations to provide mitigation for certain identified impacts and pay certain regulatory fees as conditions of approvals through the regulatory process, including substantial contribution per dwelling unit for development of affordable housing and in lieu park development fee. d. This Agreement will allow the City to realize extraordinary and significant public infrastructure facilities and other supplemental benefits in addition to those available through the existing regulatory process by funding a Communities Facilities District for area infrastructure improvements. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows: Goal 1: Promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. Policy 1.2: Support high density residential development within the City's District Centers as a part of a mixed use development. The proposed Project is being developed at a gross residential density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre which is within both the density range and maximum allowable density of 90 dwelling units per acre for the District Center and Metro East District designations. This residential use will complement the signature land uses (commercial, office, and recreational) in the District Center areas by providing patrons and employees who will be residents of the Project's dwelling units in an urban village type setting. Policy 1.5: Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. The proposed Project will provide higher density residential development in the City's urban core areas added to existing lower density residential uses along the eastern and northern areas of the City. Goal 2: Promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Policy 2.7: Support projects that contribute to the redevelopment and revitalization of the central City urban areas. Both the District Center and East Metro District allow for uses which will generate new growth and an enhanced tax base for the City which will revitalize the City's urban core areas. Redevelopment of an existing property with a new residential use will be a component of revitalizing an area planned for compatible mixed uses. Policy 2.10: Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area. Both the District Center and the East Metro District envision the type of higher density residential use proposed by the Project which would be at the same scale and character as future high intensity urban core commercial, office, and recreational uses. Goal 5: Ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. Policy 5.1: Promote development which has a net community benefit, and enhances the quality of life. Policy 5.4: Support land uses which are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element. The proposed Project consists of higher density residential units as envisioned by the Land Use Element for the City's District Center and East Metro District areas. By providing a land use which is consistent with both land use designations, the proposed Project would provide a community benefit, thereby enhancing the area's quality of life. Policy 5.5: Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. Policy 5.9: Encourage development which provides a clean and safe environment for the City's residents, workers, and visitors. As one of the key land uses in the District Center and East Metro District, the proposed Project's multiple family and townhome dwelling units will complement proposed commercial, office, and recreation uses in an urban village type setting with new development revitalizing older and underutilized properties to create a clean and safe environment for residents, workers and visitors alike. 3 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS TO RESOLUTION NO. 2013- THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MAKES THE FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, DETERMINATIONS, AND DECLARATIONS WITH RESPECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2006-01 AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2013-04 AS CONDITIONED, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2013-03 AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1901 EAST FIRST STREET 1. An Addendum Provides the Appropriate Evaluation of the Project under CEQA The Addendum prepared for this project was appropriate because none of the conditions described in Section15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which would call for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. Further, the proposed project is a reduced development compared to the project that was approved for the site in March 2007. The proposed project will not cause any impacts greater than already considered in the previously-certified EIR. 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. The proposed site consists of approximately five acres of land within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone. This acreage meets all general plan and zoning requirements for the type and density of the proposed residential use. Access to the site will occur on First Street and Cabrillo Park Drive, each of which are appropriate access points for a residential development of this type. No physical constraints on the site have been identified which would hinder the proposed use. 3. The Project Complies with All Applicable Development Standards Outlined within the MEMU Overlay Zone. a. Is the proposed development plan consistent with and will further the objectives outlined in Section 1.2 for the MEMU Overlay Zone? Yes, the following project design features, among others, further those objectives through: i. The incorporation of contemporary design styles and solutions in sustainable buildings and the use of sustainable landscaping; ii. Streetscapes with landscaping and hardscape features which help move the project toward its own special and distinct identity; iii. The incorporation of public and private pedestrian accessways to provide connectivity between residential and recreational amenities; iv. The provision of a mix of housing opportunities with the availability of both multiple family and townhome dwelling units; and v. Exceptional site planning, architecture, and high quality building exteriors and interiors, as well as appropriate high quality public improvements. Additionally: vi. The proposed project will be a mixed use project that will bring residents into the immediate area where there will be opportunities to work and shop, particularly as the area is recycled to generate a broader mix of uses. This residential component is critically needed to create local consumers to attract additional retail and commercial development to achieve the broader mixed use vision for the overlay zone. vii. The project will include an enhanced pedestrian-oriented 33,881 square foot public plaza and park that will be located on the west side of the site, encouraging active street life on the project's ground floor. Adjacent to this plaza area will be a 2,424-square foot retail amenity, which will incorporate an exterior seating area into its design. Along First Street and the East Fire Lane, the project calls for ground floor live/work units, allowing residents in these units to live and work in the same place and adding to the active use of the project's ground floor. The project will also incorporate an outdoor area between the main five-story buildings, featuring an open courtyard with decorative landscaping, hardscaping, seating areas and potential water element. viii. The project is designed to seamlessly integrate with the existing fabric of the mid-rise and high-rise office environment. It will also provide a mix of one to three bedroom housing in order to encourage a continuum of living and a variety of household types with all residents enjoying a range of indoor and outdoor amenities. ix. The transition of the MEMU Overlay Zone to its ultimate mixed use character will involve a gradual recycling of existing development. The project is in close proximity to several mid-rise buildings in the area and has been designed to complement these developments. The project is designed with a high degree of pedestrian accessibility. Further, the project incorporates a variety of high-quality architectural materials and features a unified and integrated design theme. b. Is the proposed development plan consistent with the development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU Overlay Zone? Yes, the plan is consistent with those development standards for, among others, the following reasons: Building Height. The Project consists of 5 story and 3 story buildings which meet or exceed the minimum height requirement of 3 stories, with some units having internal space which effectively adds the height of a sixth floor. ii. Development Site Area: The Project Site consists of 5.18 acres which exceeds the minimum site area of 1 acre. iii. Publicly Accessible Open Space: The provision of publicly available open space generally complies with the 15% of total lot area requirement in the form of a %-acre park area with a seating and lawn area. The publicly accessible open space is well designed and accessible through the main street facing entry of the Project. iv. Private/Common Open Space: Private open space includes patios, terraces, and rooftop decks. The Project complies with building height to open space- width ratios to ensure adequate sunlight for these areas. With 40,470 square feet of private/common open space being provided, the requirement is exceeded by approximately 2800 square feet. v. Building Setbacks: The Project meets or exceeds the setback range requirement for the front at 20 feet or less, a side setback of 10 feet or less, and a rear setback of 10 feet or less. Setbacks adjacent to public areas are landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs, or other plant material and/or decorated as a hard surface expansion of the sidewalk. Hardscape can include brick, stone, pavers, textured concrete, and patterned concrete. vi. Parking: The number of parking spaces complies with the 2.0-2.25 spaces per unit requirement of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Guest parking is provided at a rate of 10% of the total required parking spaces. A total of 559 parking spaces are provided, exceeding the requirement of 508 parking spaces (2 parking spaces per dwelling unit), fully satisfying the parking requirement on the Project site. Driveways have a maximum width of 24 feet and curb cuts are limited to enhance the pedestrian experience. vii. Building Frontages: The Project frontage includes a forecourt with a portion of the fagade close to the frontage line and the center portion set back to allow for vehicle drop-offs and/or required open space areas. c. Is the proposed development plan 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 Zone? Yes, through, among others, the following design features: i. Integrated Design: Building and landscape design features provide a unified and integrated theme through the use of a consistent style of contemporary architecture. ii. Architectural Quality: The Project's architectural details and components convey a sense of endurance and quality through the use of high quality materials and finishes. iii. Architectural Variety: The Project uses varied massing and heights and a diverse palette of high quality materials. 3 iv. Massing: Project building massing is divided into discrete building elements, with building breaks and components that reinforce a continuous street-facing urban pattern. v. Fagades: Building fagades are architecturally enhanced through building articulation, arcades, colonnades, recessed entrances, and varying window types and colors. vi. Community Connections: The Project includes community connections and linkages between developments within this part of the Zone with an emphasis on pedestrian and sidewalk-oriented buildings, including pedestrian-oriented sidewalks and streetscapes. vii. Landscape Buffers: The Project includes landscape buffers and other screening techniques to soften views of trash collection areas and the parking structure. viii. Energy Conservation-Shade and Shadow: Energy-conserving techniques are applied where feasible, including solar access, south-facing windows with eave coverage, double glazed windows, shade trees, and good ventilation with orientation of units to include a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight per unit, as feasible. ix. Residential Unit Size: The Project complies with average unit size guideline of 1200 square feet with the majority of units being either two or three bedroom. Have the land use uses, site design, and operational considerations in the proposed development plan been planned in a manner that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as specified in Section 7 of the MEMU Overlay Zone? Yes, for the following reasons: Security: Residential units and buildings are designed to ensure the security through the use of secured entrances and exits which are directly accessible to the parking garage. ii. Loading and Unloading: Adequate space is provided for the loading and unloading of vehicles, including moving vans, trash trucks, and delivery vehicles. iii. Windows: Residential windows are offset to maximize privacy. Mitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:16 PM To: Trevino, Jay; O'Rourke, Kevin; Carvalho, Sonia R. Cc: Kurita, Debbie; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Mitre-Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma Subject: AGENDA ITEM 75A - Additional Info for 1901 E. First Street Attachments: DC2606125. pdf Another letter received for your consideration. From: Peter Zak [mailto:peterzak(a Lyon 1.comI Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:13 PM To: Huizar, Maria Cc: Fregoso, Vince; Haluza, Karen; Cynthia Eppeldauer Subject: Additional Info for 1901 E. First Street Dear City Clerk: Please accept the attached document as additional evidence for the record of the 1901 E. First Street project. Please confirm receipt. Thank you. Peter D. Zak Senior Vice President Community Development & Capital Ventures LYON COMMUNITIES 4901 Birch Street • Newport Beach CA 92660 949-838-1244 • 949-252-9202 fax • 949-633-7383 cell peterzak (o)lyonl.com • LyonCommunities. corn CAPITA.. VENTURES a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Confidentiality Statement This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and trade secrets of Lyon Communities and / or its subsidiaries and affiliates. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. 9/16/2013 4:09 PM 4:09 PM uilo,l? 2 2ivaPark (949) 851-5 367 'ZO70 ;949) 8Sl .5179 P1rzadeh S30 E1 Irvine, CA 92614 4726 wwwprzaden.com September 16, 2013 Ms. Cynthia Eppeldauer Vice President, Development Lyon Capital Ventures 4901 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: First Street Apartments Traffic Analysis Dear Cynthia: The scope of work for the traffic analysis prepared for the subject project was reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Ana Transportation Engineering staff. Based on our discussions with staff it was determined that the traffic volume projections presented in the Katz, Okitsu & Associates analysis conducted in December 2006 were still valid as the basis of impact analysis for the proposed project. The projections in that study considered Year 2010 and 2030 horizon years. Due to the economic conditions over the last several years the overall area-wide traffic volumes have decreased when compared to previous projections (i.e., the regional County Traffic Model OCTAM data indicates traffic volume reductions of up to 15 percent compared to projections published in 2005-2007) and no new projects have been approved in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, today's traffic volumes around the project sites are lower than the previously projected Year 2010 with-project volumes. Finally, the proposed project has a significantly lower trip generation when compared to the previously approved project. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the information presented in our traffic analysis or this letter. Sincerely, l Peter K. Pirzadeh, P.E. Principal P.1V 14316(2)-PirstStreetApts-09162013 •CEppeldauer-Trafficanalysis- Itr.pkp Mitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:18 PM To: Trevino, Jay; O'Rourke, Kevin; Sonia R. Carvalho - SA Office Cc: Hodge, Ryan; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Mitre-Ramirez, Norma (NMitre-Ramirez@santa- ana.org); Norma Orozco; Kurita, Debbie Subject: AGENDA ITEM 75A - E. First Street Attachments: Parking Structure Operational Emissions 9.16.13.pdf; Parking Structure Operational Emissions to On-Site Residents 9.16.13.pdf Importance: High Attached please find additional documents received from Phil Martin & Associates for your review and consideration. From: Peter Zak fmailto:peterzakCa Lyon Lcoml Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:16 PM To: Huizar, Maria Cc: Fregoso, Vince; Haluza, Karen; Cynthia Eppeldauer Subject: FW: E. First Street Importance: High Dear City Clerk: In addition to my previous email to you, please also accept the email below and the two attachments to this email as additional evidence for the record of 1901 E. First Street. Please confirm receipt. Thank you. Pete From: Phil Martin [mailto:pmartin@philmartinassociates.coml Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:35 PM To: Peter Zak; 'Paone, Tim' Subject: E. First Street Importance: High Pete/Tim, Attached are two air emission calculations. One shows the level of air emissions to the closest homes, which are approximately 200 meters from the site. As shown, the CO and NOx emissions are 1.6% and 3.2% of the thresholds. The second calculations are for on-site project residents and again the emissions are well below the thresholds, 7.1% and 4.5%, respectively. Phil Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. 3002 Dow Avenue Suite 122 Tustin, CA 92780 Phone - 949-454-1800 Fax - 949-454-1801 Cell - 949-637-4373 Email - pmartin(d)philmartinassociates.com 9/16/2013 4:10 PM 4:10 PM PARKING STRUCTURE OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The proposed project would increase the number of parking spaces in proximity to off-site residents from a 220 space surface parking lot to a 531 space parking structure. As a worst-case for a local air quality impact analysis, it was assumed that every space was occupied and that every vehicle arrives and departs in a single hour on a cold, damp, winter evening. The air pollution exposure for the closest residents was evaluated in terms of CO and NOx using the modeling output for LST analyses for the Central Orange County Source-Receptor Area (SRA). At an average distance of 200 meters from the parking structure to the nearest homes, the SCAQMDs LST guidance predicts a possible violation of CO or NO, standards for the following hourly emission rates: CO - 263.6 lb/hour may cause an exceedance NO2 - 15.4 lbs/hour may cause an exceedance The CO and NOx emitted by 531 cars arriving or departing within the same hour was calculated by combining the travel distance within each level of the structure with the emission factor for a travel speed of 5 mph. The travel distance was determined as follows: Level # of Cars including Travel Distance Travel Miles handicap spaces One 114 325' 7 Two 163 650' 20 Three 160 975' 30 Four 94 1,300' 23 Total (Arrive or Depart) 80 Total Arrive and Depart 160 miles The EMFAC2011 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/nisei/niodeIin,.htm) computer model for California automobiles in 2014 states that tailpipe emissions for light duty autos are as follows for running and moving activities (output attached): CO 2.65 grams/mile gas powered vehicle 0.93 grams/rnile diesel powered vehicle NOx 0.19 grams/mile gas powered vehicle 0.77 grams/mile diesel powered vehicle Although EMFAC2011 provides running emissions for light duty vehicles, idling emissions are only calculated for medium and heavy duty trucks. However, the ARB provides the following guidance for calculating idling emissions for light duty vehicles: Calculate the by model year LDV idling emission rates by multiplying the 5 MPH Running emission rates by 5 (g/mile x mile/hr = g/hr). Therefore emissions are multiplied by a factor of 5 to account for possible idling activities. For 160 miles of in-structure travel, the automotive exhaust pollutants compare to the threshold as follows assuming 90% of vehicles are gas powered and 10% are diesel powered: Pollutant In Structure Emissions Emissions of Concern Impact vs. Threshold CO 4.3 lb/hour 263.6 lb/hour 1.6% NOx 0. 5 lb/hour 15.4 lb/hour 3.2% The worst-case CO or NO-) exposure to any resident close to the proposed structure is negligible even under the unlikely worst case assumption that 531 vehicles arrive and 531 vehicles depart in a single hour. EMFAC201 1 Ouptut Light Duty Auto, Gas and Diesel Emissions EMFAC2011 Emission Rates Region Type: Air Basin Region: South Coast Calendar Year: 2014 Season: Winter Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh Class Fuel Md1Yr South Coast 2014 Winter LDA GAS Aggregated South Coast 2014 Winter LDA DSL Aggregated Speed VMT (miles/hr) (miles/day) 5 477114.6 5 1556.427 ROG_RUNEX CO_RUNEX NOX_RUNEX (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) 0.197799 2.651665 0.190565 0.142257 0.929103 0.769017 PARKING STRUCTURE OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The proposed project would increase the number of parking spaces in proximity to off-site residents from a 220 space surface parking lot to a 531 space parking structure. As a worst-case for a local air quality impact analysis, it was assumed that every space was occupied and that every vehicle arrives and departs in a single hour on a cold, damp, winter evening. The air pollution exposure for the closest residents was evaluated in terms of CO and NOx using the modeling output for LST analyses for the Central Orange County Source-Receptor Area (SRA). At an average distance of 200 meters from the parking structure to the nearest homes, the SCAQMDs LST guidance predicts a possible violation of CO or NOS standards for the following hourly emission rates: CO - 263.6 lb/hour may cause an exceedance NO2 - 15.4 lbs/hour may cause an exceedance The CO and NOx emitted by 531 cars arriving or departing within the same hour was calculated by combining the travel distance within each level of the structure with the emission factor for a travel speed of 5 mph. The travel distance was determined as follows: Level # of Cars including handicap spaces Travel Distance Travel Miles One 114 325' 7 Two 163 650' 20 Three 160 975' 30 Four 94 1,300' 23 Total (Arrive or Depart) SO Total Arrive and Depart 160 miles The EMFAC2011 (littp://ww-w.arb.ca.2ov/nisei/modelint.htm) computer model for California automobiles in 2014 states that tailpipe emissions for light duty autos are as follows for running and moving activities (output attached): CO 2.65 grams/mile gas powered vehicle 0.93 grams/mile diesel powered vehicle NOx 0.19 grams/mile gas powered vehicle 0.77 grams/mile diesel powered vehicle Although EMFAC2011 provides running emissions for light duty vehicles, idling emissions are only calculated for medium and heavy duty trucks. However, the ARB provides the following guidance for calculating idling emissions for light duty vehicles: Calculate the by model year LDV idling emission rates by multiplying the 5 MPH Running emission rates by 5 (glinile x mile/hr = g/hr). Therefore emissions are multiplied by a factor of 5 to account for possible idling activities. For 160 miles of in-structure travel, the automotive exhaust pollutants compare to the threshold as follows assuming 90% of vehicles are gas powered and 10% are diesel powered: Pollutant In Structure Emissions Emissions of Concern Impact vs. Threshold At Closest Existing Sensitive Use CO 4.3 lb/hour 263.6 lb/hour 1.6% NOx 0. 5 lb/hour 15.4 lb/hour 3.2% For information, emissions were also compared to the LST standards for a receptor at the closest possible distance from the source and could be indicative of on-site residential exposure as follows: Pollutant In Structure Emissions Emissions of Concern Impact vs. Threshold For On-Site Sensitive Use CO 4.3 lb/hour 60.6 lb/hour 7.1% NOx 0. 5 lb/hour 11.1 lb/hour 4.5% The worst-case CO or N02 exposure to any resident close to the proposed structure is negligible even under the most extreme worst case situation whereby 531 vehicles arrive and 531 vehicles depart in a single hour. Possible peak hour usages rates and associated emissions impact will be much lower. EMFAC2011 Ouptut Light Duty Auto, Gas and Diesel Emissions EMFAC2011 Emission Rates Region Type: Air Basin Region: South Coast Calendar Year: 2014 Season: Winter Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_Class South Coast 2014 Winter LDA South Coast 2014 Winter LDA Fuel MdlYr Speed (miles/hr) GAS Aggregated 5 DSL Aggregated S VMT ROG_RUNEX CO_RUNEX NOX_RUNEX (miles/day) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) 477114.6 0.197799 2.651665 0.190565 1556.427 0.142257 0.929103 0.769017 Mitre-Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:35 PM To: Trevino, Jay; O'Rourke, Kevin; Carvalho, Sonia R. Cc: Kurita, Debbie; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Mitre-Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma; Hodge, Ryan Subject: AGENDA ITEM 75A: Comments on 815 N. Harbor Attachments: Ltr_SA CC 815 N Harbor_13.9.16.pdf Comments received from Kennedy Commission on Agenda Item 75A for your consideration. From: linda tang Lmailto:kencomlt33Ca)gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:17 PM To: Huizar, Maria Cc: Todd Cottle; Cesar Covarrubias; Scott Bering; ohdcorpC?aol.com Subject: RE: Comments on 815 N. Harbor Dear City Clerk Huizar, Please find attached the Kennedy Commission's comments regarding tonight's City Council Hearing regarding Agenda Item #80A - Substantial Amendments to Neighborhood Stabilization Programs 2 & 3 and Loan Agreement with 815 N. Harbor. Thank you for your time and if you have any questions.. please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Linda Tang The Kennedy Commission 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 p: (949) 250-0909 f: (949) 263-0647 www.kennedycommission.org 9/16/2013 4:13 PM 4:13 PM September 16, 2013 The Honorable Mayor Miguel Pulido, Mayor of Santa Ana and Members of the Santa Ana City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Support for Affordable Homes- 815 N. Harbor Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: ,u-'"nnedy • • www, kennedycommission.org 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create strategic and effective housing policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income work-force families. The Commission would like to acknowledge and commend the City for its leadership in encouraging and facilitating the development of homes affordable to lower income families. By the end of this year, the City will have completed 191 new affordable rental apartment homes: • Terraces at Santiago: 36 family apartment homes • Santa Ana WBBB: 15 family apartment homes • Triada Court and Triada Garden apartments: 99 family apartment homes • Vista Del Rio: 41 special needs apartment homes In addition, the City has an affordable mixed-use residential development in the pipeline- the Depot at Santiago. The development of these quality homes will not only provide safer and healthier homes but it will also significantly improve the quality of life for many lower income working families in the City. The Commission urges the City to continue its great efforts in addressing the City's housing needs for lower income families and recommends the City to support the 815 N. Harbor development. The Commission looks forward to continuing our partnership with the City to increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working families. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director UP 16 N-11 3- 5 1 r=` ANA September 13, 2013 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I, John Rix, am a licensed architect and have been doing business in the building next to the proposed development at 1901 E 1St Street for almost a decade. As of now, I can see the neighboring multi-level garage from my window and have the following concerns with the proposed plans: 1. There is a difference in elevation along the eastern property line between the Georgetown Building and the projected site of about four feet. This is a safety hazard and there should be at least an 8-foot cement block wall to protect office tenants and future residential tenants. 2. The plan to seal off an existing multi-level naturally vented parking structure may have a potentially dangerous ventilation problem that can lead to harmful carbon monoxide accumulation. Carbon monoxide can cause headaches, illness and in extreme cases even death when inhaled. While this parking structure was originally intended to be naturally ventilated by open air all sides, the proposed project will seal the garage off with multifamily buildings on one side (west) and townhouses on two sides (east side and on the south side on East 1St street). This will create an enclosure filled with deadly Carbon monoxide. This should be addressed before site approval because it may be difficult to install venting with the low ceiling of the parking garage. 3. It would be harmful to vent the auto exhaust upwards because the roof area is designed to be a pool and recreation area. Where are they venting the exhaust? The aforementioned points are not to be taken likely and should be resolved before approving the proposed plans.