HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - THE MADISONREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 3, 2018
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING -APPEAL NO. 2017-05 OF SITE
PLAN REVIEW NO. 2016-03 AND VARIANCE NOS.
2017-05 AND 2017-06 TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEVEN -STORY 260 -UNIT
MIXED-USE BUILDING "THE MADISON" AT'200
NORTH CABRILLO PARK DRIVE - CABRILLO
COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC, APPLICANT
(STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3,2)
r
MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1gW4ZK(•73ds1111.DllIIIIIJIb9_ems_ II_Ar8
❑ As Recommended
❑ As Amended
❑ Ordinance on 1°t Reading
❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading
❑ Implementing Resolution
❑ Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
Approve Appeal No. 2017-05 and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2016-03
as conditioned and Variance No. 2017-06 as conditioned for the side yard setback.
Deny Appeal No. 2017-05 and adopt a resolution denying Variance No. 2017-05 to allow a
reduction in parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At its regular meeting on December 11, 2017, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5:2
(Mendoza and Nguyen opposed) denied Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance No. 2017-05
and Variance No. 2017-06 to allow The Madison mixed-use development to be constructed with
deviations from the City's parking and setback standards located at 200 North Cabrillo Park
Drive. The Planning Commission made changes to the recommendation outlined in the attached
staff report (Exhibit A) and the action for denial is in the attached resolution (Exhibit B).
DISCUSSION
Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC is requesting approval to allow the construction of a mixed-use
residential and commercial development at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive. The project consists
of approximately 6,500 square feet of commercial space, 260 residential units, and 445 parking
spaces within a parking structure. Staff recommended approval of the project entitlements with
conditions of approval including a condition to revise the plans to include 1.8 spaces per unit (468
parking spaces) in lieu of the requested 1.7 spaces per unit (445 parking spaces). Prior to the
hearing, the applicant agreed to the recommended conditions of approval. At the public hearing,
three members of the public spoke in opposition of the variances, citing concerns with the
75A-1
Appeal No. 2017-05 of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06 —
The Madison project at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive
April 3, 2018
Page 2
findings, parking, and traffic flow. After further discussion, the Planning Commission
subsequently denied the project.
The appeal was filed in accordance with Section 41-645 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code
(SAMC), which allows any interested parry, individual or group to file an appeal. This section
requires the filing of an appeal application within 10 calendar days following the date of the
decision by the Planning Commission, which was filed on December 20, 2017. Per Section 41-
645 (h) of the SAMC, the Council may, after a public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, modify the
original decision and make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the
limitations imposed by Chapter 41. In granting or denying the appeal, Section 41-646 of the
SAMC requires the Council to make written findings of fact that specifies all facts relied upon in
rendering its decision.
In response to the Planning Commission's denial, Robert Bisno, on behalf of Cabrillo Community
Partners, LLC, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The reasons for the
appeal were based on the need to comply with the Orange County Fire Authority's setback
standards, an economic necessity for the parking variance, and providing sufficient parking
capacity (Exhibit C). Additionally, the applicant submitted concept plans showing the provision of
468 parking spaces on the subject site (Exhibit D) and a draft economic impact analysis of the
benefits of the project (Exhibit E).
Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to construct the project with a side yard setback that
is larger than allowed under the development standards of the Metro East Mixed -Use (MEMU)
Overlay Zone. The purpose of the increased setback is to provide Fire Authority access to
sections of the building that are outside their coverage. Requiring the Code mandated 10 foot
setback would restrict Fire access and render the project infeasible.
Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request to reduce the required parking for the project.
The minimum required parking for a project in the MEMU area is 2 spaces per unit. This parking
requirement is consistent with the parking standards most of the Transit Zoning Code area
(except for the Downtown subzone). Staff contends that since street parking does not exist, and
overflow parking is very limited in the vicinity, the 2 spaces per unit will satisfy the parking
demand for the project and will minimize potential parking problems in the area. Although staff is
considering a reduction in parking within the MEMU area, the findings of the parking study have
not been finalized. However, staff can be supportive of the parking variance provided the
applicant secures off-site parking agreements with non-residential property owners in close
proximity to the development site. These agreements must be in place prior to issuance of
building permits for the project.
Based on staffs review and analysis of the project, and the project's consistency with the Metro
East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone, staff recommends that the City Council approve Appeal No. 2017-
75A-2
Appeal No. 2017-05 of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06 —
The Madison project at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive
April 3, 2018
Page 3
05 and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 as conditioned and Variance
No. 2017-06 as conditioned to allow an increase in the side yard setback. Further, staff
recommends that the City Council deny Appeal No. 2017-05 and adopt a resolution denying
Variance No. 2017-05 to allow a reduction in parking.
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).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
andida Neal, AICP
Acting Executive Director
Planning & Building Agency
JA: rb
S:RFCA\2018\03-20-18\PBA SPR16-03VA17-05 200 N Cabrillo -Appeal
Exhibit: A. Planning Commission Staff Report
B. Planning Commission Resolution for Denial of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03
and Variances No. 2017-05 and 2017-06
C. Appeal Application received December 20, 2017
D. Conceptual plans with additional parking received December 20, 2017
E. Draft Impact Analysis from Applicant received January 15, 2018
F. Council Resolution for Approval of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 and Variance
No. 2017-06
G. Council Resolution for Denial of Variance No. 2017-05
75A-3
75A-4
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
DECEMBER 11, 2017
TITLE:
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2016-03 AND VARIANCE NOS.
2017-05 AND 2017.06 TO ALLOW A MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT (THE MADISON) WITH DEVIATIONS
TO PARKING AND SETBACKS LOCATED AT 200
NORTH CABRILLO PARK DRIVE — CABRILLO
COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC, APPLICANT
(STRATEGIC PLAN 3, 2)
Prepared by Jill Arabe n
V v `
Acting Plakingy.dnager
Acting Executive Director
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
APPROVED
❑
As Recommended
❑
As Amended
❑
Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
Professional & Administrative
❑
Applicant's Request
❑
Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 as conditioned.
2. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2017-05 as conditioned.
3. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2017-06 as conditioned.
Executive Summary
Robert Bisno with Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC, is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No.
2016-03 and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06 to allow the construction of The Madison, a seven -
story, 260 -unit mixed-use development at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive. Pursuant to the Metro East
Mixed -Use Overlay (MEMU) Zone Section 8.1, a site plan review application is required and subject
to review and approval by the Planning Commission. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval
of two variances to allow a 14 -percent reduction in required parking and to permit a 30 -foot side yard
setback in lieu of a maximum 10 -foot side yard setback. Staff is recommending approval with
conditions due to the project's consistency and compliance with the vision of the Metro East Mixed -
Use Overlay Zone.
Table 1: Protect and Location Information
Item
Information
Project Address
200 North Cabrillo Park Drive
Nearest Intersection
Cabrillo Park and and
Xerox Centre drives
General Plan Designation
Professional & Administrative
Office (PAO)
Zoning Designation
Specific Development No. 54 (Xerox Centre) with the Metro East Mixed -Use
Overlay Zone OZ -1 — Active Urban District
EXHIBIT A
75A-5
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 2
It
ding Land Uses
Information
North Office
_
South Office
East Mixed -Use
West Santa Ana
Size
acresSite
Freewa2.79
Develo ment
None; the site iscurrent) vacant
missions
Mixed-use ro'ects ermilted b the MEMU(OZ-1-
OZ-1 desi nation
Zoning Codes Affected
off
OffStreet Parking
OZ -1, Section 4.8
One -Bedroom + Loft
11
SAMC Section 41-638.1
1,040
Two -Bedroom
SAMC Section 41-632
16.5
Buildin Setback
OZ -1, Section 4.7
Protect Description
The project consists of an approximately 487,000 square foot mixed-use seven -story
development at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive. The development is proposed with 256 residential
apartment units, four live/work units, approximately 6,500 square feet of retail uses, and 445
parking spaces within a three-level parking garage. Site improvements include a fire access lane'
along the south and west property lines, 20,733 square feet of public open space, and 45,109
square feet of private and common open space.
Table 2: Proiect Summary
-
Residential Units i,, -•.-
Unit Type
Number Proposed
Percent of Units
Square Footage
Studios
54
20.8
538-619
One -Bedroom
144
55.4
752-977
One -Bedroom + Loft
11
4.3
1,040
Two -Bedroom
43
16.5
1,064-1,208
Three -Bedroom
4
1.5
1,595
Live/Work
4
1.5
1,540-1,592
Total
260
100
222,285
Parking'
Parking Type
Number Proposed
Percent of Parking
Allocation
Residential (Gated)
392
88
1.51 spaces per unit
Guest/Commercial
Total Onsite Spaces
53
445
12
100
0.2 spaces per unit
1.71 spaces per unit
The project will feature a contemporary architectural style with a combination of materials
including standing seam metal panel siding, corten steel window surrounds, vintage wood cedar
panel siding, and plaster finishes.
75A-6
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 3
Inclusionary Housin
The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the Housing Opportunity Ordinance
(HOO), which contains inclusionary unit requirements for projects that consist of the construction
of five or more dwelling units (SAMC Sections 41-1900 at al.). The applicant is requesting
approval for 260 market rate rental units within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The
applicant has opted to pay an in -lieu fee of approximately $3,334,275 to satisfy the City's
inclusionary housing requirements, which is subject to adjustment at the time of building permit
issuance.
Proiect Backaround
On April 13, 2015, the Planning Commission approved plans for The Madison that consisted of a
six -story development with 217 dwelling units (including four live/work units) and 6,220 square feet
of commercial retail uses on the subject site. The development included approximately 20,700
square feet of public open space, 32,000 square feet of private and common open space, and 441
parking spaces within a two-level parking garage.
The proposed project is a revision to the 2015 plans with an increase in building height and number
of units, architectural modifications and enhancements, and a reduction in parking. In order to
adequately provide fire access, the site layout is also modified from prior plans to reduce the
building massing along the south and west sides of the site.
Pursuant to SAMC Section 41.638.1, a minor exception has been granted by the Planning Manager
for 23% tandem residential spaces, specifically 104 parking spaces arranged in tandem
configuration. More tandem parking spaces (48%) were provided with the previously approved
plans and the current project is proposing less tandem spaces. Tandem parking is only proposed
within the access -controlled area of the three-level parking structure and will not impact the publicly
available spaces for guests and commercial uses. Tandem parking is a supported, common
practice in larger, urban office and residential projects, including other projects in Santa Ana and
those in surrounding cities. The tandem spaces are planned to be distributed between one -bed,
two -bed, three -bed, and live/work units and managed through a parking management plan.
Proiect Analysis
The proposed mixed-use development requires approval of a site plan review and two variances by
the Planning Commission. The following sections of this report provide analyses for each of the
proposed action items and the basis for staffs recommendation of approval of the project.
Site Plan Review
Pursuant to MEMU Section 8.1, site plan review approval by the Planning Commission is required
for development projects in the overlay zone to ensure conformity with applicable development
standards. The subject site is located within the Active Urban District of the MEMU that is intended
75A-7
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 4
for the most intensive development and designed to create a highly urbanized environment. After
analyzing the project, staff finds that the proposed project is in compliance with all applicable
development standards, with the exception of required on-site parking and the side yard setback, as
indicated in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Conformance to Development Standards
Standard
I Re uired b EMU—ActiveUrban District
Provided
Maximum Number Stories
No Maximum, 3 Stories Minimum
Seven stories
Minimum Development Site Area
One acre
2.79 acres
Permitted Street Level Building
Forecourt
Forecourt
Frontages
Required
less than 10% of
Publicly Accessible Open Space
15% of Total Lot Area =18,230 sq. fl.
20,733 sq. ft.
Private/Common O en Space
100 sq. ft. per unit = 26,000 sq. ft.
45,109 sq. ft.
Building Front Yard
0-20 ft.
11 ft.
Setbacks
Side Yard
0-10 ft.
30 ft. — variance
commercial activity.
nonresidential uses
required
Rear Yard
0-10 ft.
15 ft.
Parking
Mixed-use with less than 10% of gross floor area
1.71 spaces per unit =
devoted to a commercial activity: 2.0 spaces per
445 spaces — variance
residential or live/work unit Inclusive of guest parking
required
and an nonresidential uses = 520 s aces
Variances
The applicant is requesting the approval of two variances to allow a 14 -percent reduction in
required parking and a 30 -foot side yard setback in lieu of a maximum 10 -foot side yard setback.
Pursuant to Section 41-632.2 of the SAMC, the Planning Commission may grant a variance to
development standards when it can be shown that there exists a special circumstance related to
the property, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, will
not be detrimental to the public or surrounding property, and will not adversely affect the General
Plan. If these findings can be made, then it is appropriate to grant the variances. Conversely, the
inability to make these findings would result in a denial. Staff has prepared the following analysis
that forms the basis for the variance recommendations contained in this report.
Reduction in Parking
Table 4: Conformance to Parking Requirements
Standard
Re uired b MEMU Section 4.8
Provided
Mixed-use
Minimum of 2.0
Parking Spaces
developments with
spaces per residential
Required
less than 10% of
or live/work unit
2.0 spaces x 260 units =
1.71 spaces x 260 units =
the gross floor area
inclusive of guest
520 spaces required
445 spaces provided
devoted to a
parking and any
commercial activity.
nonresidential uses
75A-8
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 5
The City is currently reviewing options to update the citywide parking requirements for multi -family
residential uses, including those required in the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The goals of
the parking update are to modernize the requirements and find a balance between encouraging infill
development, promoting alternative transportation modes (walking, cycling, mass transit, rideshare,
etc.) and reducing potential parking impacts to existing neighborhoods. The City has retained DKS
Associates to study and evaluate surrounding cities and current parking demands for multi -family
residential uses and mixed-use sites. The early technical draft of the study generally shows that the
City's current requirements exceed observed parking research for multi -family housing and that
parking surveys are resulting in lower parking demand ratios. One of the options identified in the
technical draft of the study is a minimum parking per dwelling unit ratio (1.8/unit) that is below the
current MEMU standards to adequately address multi -family residential parking needs. In applying
this ratio, the project would need to provide a total of 468 onsite parking spaces, which is an
additional 23 spaces than the proposed supply of 445 spaces.
The applicant has provided a parking study by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan (LLG) to demonstrate
that the proposed parking supply (1.71 spaces per unit) is adequate for the mixed-use development.
The LLG parking study (Exhibit 9) states that parking demand for multifamily residential uses have
been found to be lower than the current MEMU parking requirement of 2.0 spaces per unit (inclusive
of guest spaces and any nonresidential uses). The analysis is based on field studies of actual
parking demand at 12 existing sites that are similar to the project and other parking
demand/empirical ratio compilations from other sources. Existing sites that were studied had
contextually similar characteristics to the proposed project including apartment unit mix, proximity to
transit or ride share lots, and surrounding land uses. The results of the study show that 1.61 spaces
per unit is an adequate supply of parking to meet the demand. Other publications and jurisdictions
also support lower parking ratios demonstrating that peak parking demand for apartment complexes
range from 1.37 spaces per unit to 1.66 spaces per unit. Furthermore, the. study states that the
proposed 53 spaces of parking available for residential guests and commercial uses will adequately
address demand because peak parking demand for retail differs from residential peak parking
demand. It is also anticipated that a majority of the patrons to the commercial uses will primarily be
residents of the subject site and occupants of nearby residential and office uses and may not
necessarily drive to or park at the site.
One of the objectives of the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone is to create an active, mixed-use
urban village where it is possible to live, work, shop and play all within a short walk of each other. By
encouraging high-intensity developments within close proximity of each other, it is anticipated that
residents and visitors will use alternative methods of transportation such as walking, bicycling, and
transit to and from various sites. In allowing a parking reduction for the subject site based upon peak
parking demand, the City is achieving its goals of the MEMU and progressing towards a greener
environment that supports pedestrian and bicycle activity and increasing housing opportunities.
Staff supports a reduced parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit, which would provide 468 spaces in
lieu of the required 520 spaces (difference of 52 spaces). The reduced ratio is consistent with the
technical draft of the MEMU parking study by DKS Associates. It considers parking demand based
upon surveys of other similar residential developments and reflects current parking trends in urban
75A-9
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 6
settings. As residential uses are built closer to commercial uses, individuals rely on easier traveling
methods such as walking and bicycling. As the City continues to update streets and circulation
plans to reduce speeds, incorporate bike lanes and larger sidewalks, and improve transit
opportunities, the demand for parking will change.
As of December 4, 2017, the applicant/owner has agreed to staffs recommendation of 1.8 spaces
per unit. In order to satisfy the parking recommendation, the applicant would have to comply with
one of the following options, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division:
- Revise the plans to provide 23 additional onsite parking spaces
- Revise the plans to reduce the number of units by 13 (247 units)
- Revise the plans with a combination of adding parking and reducing number of units
Building Setback
The applicant is requesting approval to permit a 30 -foot side yard setback in lieu of a maximum 10 -
foot side yard setback along the south property line. The intent of the MEMU standard was to
facilitate building articulation and maximize building form. However, due to fire safety issues related
to building construction and access, the site necessitates a fire lane along the south and west sides
of the building, thus requiring a greater building setback from the property lines. The fire lane will
provide access for a fire truck to stage and adequately serve the property during emergencies.
Additionally, the setback area will be designed to accommodate open space for the residents and
their guests with the inclusion of trees, landscaping, decorative paving, and seating. Residents may
use this area for their pets, walking/running paths, and other recreational activities such as yoga or
bocce ball.
Table 5: CEQA, Strategic Plan Alignment and Public Notification & Community Outreach
CEQA, Strategic Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Community Outreacn
CEQA
CEQA Type
Class 32 Categorical Exemption/Sec. 15332 — In -Fill Develo Projects
Reason(s)
ment
The Class 32 exemption applies to projects characterized as infill development meeting
Exempt or Analysis
the following conditions: 1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan
designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning
designation and regulation; 2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; 3. The
project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4.
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality; and 5. The site can be adequately served by all required
utilities and public services.
The project site and type of development proposed are already addressed in the
previously approved environmental impact report (EIR) for the MEMU overlay district (EIR
No. 2006-01). However, a Class 32 exemption is required for the project because the
original EIR did not require a greenhouse gas study. The applicant submitted a
greenhouse gas study to indicate that the project will not negatively impact greenhouse
gas reduction goals. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to identify
any impacts from developing a residential community adjacent to a freeway. The HRA
75A-10
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 7
CEQA, Strate is Plan Alignment, and Public Notification & Community Outreach
recommends that the project incorporate certain window design features on freeway -
facing elevations for all units adjacent to the 1-5 freeway, and that the project install air
filtration systems throughout.
As outlined in this staff report, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the
MEMU regulating plan. The proposed project has been found by the City's development
review agencies to not create any adverse impacts. The building is on a site that is not
designated by federal, state, or local agencies to be an environmental resource of
hazardous or critical concern. The cumulative impact of this project will not be significant
as 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. In addition, the property is already
served by roads and utilities, and will not create any adverse impacts such as noise,
traffic, or safety concerns. There is no reasonable possibility that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project is not
located within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway and will not result
in damage to scenic resources. As a result, Categorical Exemption Environmental Review
No. 2017-124 will be filed for this project.
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 businessfjob growth and
encourage private devefo gent ihrou h new General Plan and Zonin Ordinance policies.
. , Public Notifidation 8, Communit 'Outreach
Required Measures
A ublic notice was osted on the project ect site on November 30, 2017.
Notification by mail was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet
of the
project site on November 30, 2017.
News a er posting was published in the Orange County Reporter on December 1, 2017.
The applicant held a Sunshine Ordinance community meeting on November 2, 2016 at
Avila's EI Ranchito restaurant. Five members of the public attended. Primary concerns
were regarding parking and traffic. The applicant has provided parking demand and traffic
impact analysis reports to address the concerns and the project's potential impacts.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance No. 2017-05, and Variance
No. 2017-06 as conditioned.
1
Nam-
j/Lir�
JA:sb
SVJl iog Commisslcnx2017112-11-171sPR16.03VA17-05200 N Cabrillo
Exhibits: 1. Resolution
2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View
3. Site Photo
75A-11
SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06
December 11, 2017
Page 8
4.
Site Plan
5.
Floor Plans
6.
Building Elevations
7.
Building Perspectives
8.
Landscape Plans
9.
Parking Demand Analysis
75A-12
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 2016-03 AND VARIANCE NOS. 2017-05 AND
2017-06 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEVEN -STORY MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT WITH UP TO 260 UNITS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 NORTH CABRILLO PARK
DRIVE
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. Robert Bisno with Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC (hereinafter referred
to as "Applicant) Is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03,
Variance No. 2017-05, and Variance No. 2017-06 as conditioned, to allow
the construction of a seven -story mixed-use development with up to 260
units at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive.
B. On December 11, 2017, 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.
C. The Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone 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.
D. 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
apply the overlay zone, to ensure the project is in conformity with the
overlay zone plan.
E. Pursuant to the MEMU Overlay Zone Section 8.1, the Planning Commission
is authorized to review and approve all site plan review applications to
ensure that buildings, structures, and grounds will be in keeping with the
compatibility standards and design principles of the MEMU Overlay Zone
and will not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the city or
Resolution No. 2017 -roc
EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 of 11
75A-13
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the MEMU Overlay
Zone.
F. The zoning designation for the subject property is Metro East Mixed Use
(MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ -1) in the Active Urban sub -zone.
G. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which
must be established in order to grant this Site Pian Review pursuant to
SAMC Section 41-595.5 and MEMU Section 8.1, have been established
for Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 to allow construction of the proposed
project.
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 up to 260 residential units
(including four live/work units) and approximately 6,600 sq.
ft. of commercial uses. The project design incorporates an
active streetscape that integrates the private development
with the public realm. The project meets several General
Plan goals and policies, including Land Use Element Goal 1
(promote a balance of land uses to address basic community
needs), Goal 2 (promote land uses which enhance the City's
economic and fiscal viability), and Housing Element Policy
HE -2.3 (encourage the construction of rental housing for
Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a
commitment to very low, low, and moderate income
residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers) and
Policy HE -2.5 (require excellence in architectural design
through the use of materials and colors, building treatments,
landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally
sensitive ("green") building and design practices).
2. That the proposed development plan is consistent with the
development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU overlay
district.
The project complies with the majority of development
standards enumerated in the MEMU regulating plan, with the
exception of required parking and side yard setback, which
are analyzed through the variances.
3. That the proposed development plan is designed to be compatible
with adjacent development in terms of similarity of scale, height,
Resolution No.2017-xx
Page 2 of 11
75A-14
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 seven -level project
surrounded by several existing mid and high-rise buildings
and has been designed to complement these developments.
It supports the vision of the MEMU plan with the construction
of a high-density mixed-use development in close proximity
to similar residential uses and supportive commercial uses.
The project incorporates a variety of architectural materials,
massing and ground floor uses that are compatible with the
MEMU plan. It encourages a reduction in parking to reduce
construction cost and emissions and to foster alternative
modes of transportation such as bicycling, walking, and
transit.
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.
No significant 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 Cabrillo Park
Drive with the provision of publicly accessible open space,
small-scale commercial uses, and a variety of seating and
recreational amenities.
H. The Planning Commission determines that the following findings, which
must be established in order to grant Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06
for required parking and side yard setback, respectively, have been
established as required by SAMC Section 41-638:
That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found
to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this
Chapter.
The proposed project will be located in an area completely
built -out by commercial and residential uses that restrict the
site from providing additional parking spaces and compliant
side yard setback to the south property line. The site is
surrounded by high-rise offices and parking structures that
Resolution No. 2017-xx
Page 3 of 11
75A-15
have ample parking with divergent peak hour demands from
the residential component of the proposed project. Adjacent
commercial sites are built out to minimum setbacks and abut
a freeway, which limits the amount of developable area for
habitable space, parking, and open space for future
residents and visitors. Additionally, the site necessitates
adequate emergency access to the rear of the property to
serve the proposed development. In order to properly
address life safety issues, the building massing which takes
into account the parking garage and setbacks must be
reduced.
2. That the granting of the variances Is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of one (1) or more substantial property rights.
The granting of the parking and setback variances will
preserve the property owner's ability to develop a vacant lot
with uses consistent with the MEMU overlay plan and to
provide adequate emergency access to serve the project.
The development will revitalize the currently undeveloped
parcel and activate the area with additional housing and
commercial uses to support the active -urban subzone of the
MEMU overlay plan. Future housing and active retail uses
will benefit the neighborhood and promote the ability to live,
work, shop, and play all within a short walk of each other.
3. • That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The granting of the parking and setback variances will not be
detrimental to the public or surrounding properties. As
demonstrated in the parking analysis for the project, the site
will have sufficient parking to accommodate the peak
demand for the future residential and commercial uses. The
parking study also demonstrates that residential uses have
divergent peak demand hours than commercial and
surrounding offices, therefore no significant impacts to traffic
or parking are anticipated. Furthermore, the 30 -foot setback
in lieu of a maximum 10 -foot setback is necessary to
accommodate emergency access and will serve a dual
design purpose as open space for the residents. The
variances will allow for the development of an undeveloped
site consistent with the MEMU overlay plan.
4. That the granting of the variances will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the city.
Resolution No. 2017-xx
Page 4 of 11
75A-16
The project will not adversely affect the General Plan, but
rather support its goals. The proposed project is consistent
with Land Use Element Goal 1 (promote a balance of land
uses to address basic community needs) and Goal 2
(promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and
fiscal viability) by providing a high-intensity mixed-use
residential, and commercial development consistent with the
vision of the area and surrounding land use designations.
The variances allow for the development of the project in a
mid to high-rise built environment and provide housing in
close proximity to support nearby commercial uses.
Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15332
(Class 32 "In -Fill Development Projects").
The Class 32 exemption applies to projects characterized as infill development
meeting the following conditions: 1. The project is consistent with the applicable general
plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable
zoning designation and regulation; 2. The proposed development occurs within city
limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban
uses; 3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species; 4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and 5. The site can be adequately served by
all required utilities and public services.
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the MEMU regulating
plan. The project meets several General Pian goals and policies, including Land Use
Element Goal 1 (promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs)
and Goal 2 (promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability),
and Housing Element Policy HE -2.3 (encourage the construction of rental housing for
Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and
moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers) and Policy HE -
2.5 (require excellence in architectural design through the use of materials and colors,
building treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally sensitive
("green") building and design practices).
The project site and type of development proposed are already addressed in the
previously approved environmental impact report (EIR) for the MEMU overlay district
(EIR No. 2006-01). However, a Class 32 exemption is required for the project because
the original EIR did not require a greenhouse gas study. The Applicant submitted a
greenhouse gas study to Indicate that the project will not negatively impact greenhouse
gas reduction goals. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to
identify any impacts from developing a residential community adjacent to a freeway.
The HRA recommends that the project incorporate certain window design features on
freeway -facing elevations for all units adjacent to the 1-5 freeway, and that the project
install air filtration systems throughout.
Resolution No. 2017-xx
Page 5 of 11
75A-17
Section 3. 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.
Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the
public hearing, hereby approves Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance No. 2017-05,
and Variance No. 2017-06 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 December 11, 2017, and exhibits attached thereto; and the
public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
Mark McLoughlin
Chairman
75A-18
Resolution No. 2017-xa
Page 6 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2017-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on December 11, 2017.
Date:
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
75A-19
Resoluffon No. 2017-xa
Page 7 of 11
EXHIBIT A
Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance No. 2017-05, and Variance No. 2017-06 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 belowna for to exercising
the rights conferred by this site plan review and variances.
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 and variances.
A. Planning Division
1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval
of DP No. 2016-38.
2. The project plans shall be revised to provide one of the following options,
subject to the review and approval by the Planning Division:
a) Add 23 onsite parking spaces
b) Reduce the number of units to 247
c) A combination of providing a minimum of 1.8 parking spaces per unit and
reducing the number of units
3. 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.
4. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures as required by the Metro
East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone.
5. A residential property manager shall be on site at all times that the project is
occupied.
6. All new utilities and mechanical equipment such as backflow devices, Edison
transformers, and double check detector assembly devices shall not be located
Resolution No. 2017-xx
Page 8 of 11
75A-20
within front yard setbacks and must be screened from view from public and
courtyard areas.
7. All parking for the project, including visitor parking spaces, shall be made
available free of charge.
S. The interior of the parking structure shall be painted white.
9. 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.
10. After project occupancy, landscaping and hardscape materials must be
maintained as shown on the approved landscape plans.
11.A Resident Storage Plan shall be provided for the project prior to occupancy.
Storage shall be available at no cost to the residents.
12. Smart wiring, including cable television and high-speed cable for computers,
shall be provided for each unit and within the project's common areas.
13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed:
a) 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.
b) Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and
elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and
fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and be
approved by the Planning Division.
14. Prior to occupancy of any units, the following shall be completed:
a) A rental housing execution plan must be submitted to the Planning Division
for review and approval. At a minimum, the plan shall identify the location of
employee and visitor parking, the location of the rental office, hours of
operation for the rental office, and signage affiliated with the Rental Housing
Operational Plan. In addition, the rental plan must clearly note that the
parking and project amenities must be provided free of charge to the
residents.
b) A revised parking management plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval. The plan shall include additional parking
Resolution No. 2017 -mc
Page 9 of 11
75A-21
spaces with accompanying exhibits and provisions for the distribution and
management of parking for residents, employees and guests.
15.As a result of the health risk assessment (HRA) and to reduce any adverse
health effects associated with diesel -truck emissions associated with the
project's proximity to the 1-5 Freeway, Applicant must install non-operable
windows on all windows facing the 1-5 Freeway and install air filtration systems
with filters meeting or exceeding the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration,
and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 52.5 Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV) of 14.
16. A Public Art Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for staff review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The public art shall be
installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
B. Police Department
1. The Applicant will be required to submit a security plan for the proposed project
to the Police Department. The plan will be required to outline hours of operation
for the parking structure (securedlopen), a duress alarm system for the parking
structure and an access control system for the perimeter of the building.
2. Parking structure and buildings: Each door within the structure and building
leading into a stairwell, lobby, or storage area must be outfitted with a 100
square inch fire rated window. Convex mirrors minimum of 12 inch in diameter
must be provided at each stairwell landing, in the storage rooms and at each
comer along a walkway. The last flight of each stair must be fully enclosed at its
base.
3. Elevators are to be equipped with minimum 12 -inch shatterproof convex mirrors
or are to have mirrored backing.
4. Parking structure first floor exits must be designed to allow emergency egress
with no exterior hardware.
5. Building/unit addressing shall comply with emergency service standards of the
City of Santa Ana.
6. Lobby doors must be equipped with a Police Department approved access
control system.
Provide a minimum 100 square inch window in the trash room and storage
room doors.
8. Parking Structure elevators must be equipped with an approved access control
system.
Resolution No. 2017-xx
Page 10 of 11
75A-22
C. Orange County Fire Authority
1. Prior to OCFA clearance of issuance of a building permit, the Applicant or
responsible party shall submit plans and obtain approval of the following:
a) Fire master plan (service code PR145)
b) Architectural (service codes PR200-PR285)
c) Architectural (service codes (PR212-PR220, abbreviated review)
d) Tanks storing hazardous materials (service codes PR300-PR305)
e) Hazardous materials compliance and chemical classification (service codes
PR315-PR328)
f) Battery (service code PR375), for any system containing an aggregate
quantity of electrolyte in excess of 50 gallons
g) Underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service
code PR470-PR475)
h) Fire sprinkler system (service code PR400-PR465)
2. Prior to concealing interior construction, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a
fire alarm system (service code PR500-PR520).
3. Before commencement of construction, the Applicant or responsible party shall
attend a pre -construction meeting with an OCFA inspector. Call OCFA Inspection
Scheduling at 714-573-6150 at least five days in advance to schedule and pay for
the pre -construction meeting.
4. After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the Applicant
shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building
materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150 with the
Service Request number of the approved fire master plan at least five days in
advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection.
5. The Applicant or responsible party shall provide the OCFA inspector evidence
of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system performance criteria
prior to occupancy. Refer to OCFA Guideline E-03 or the local jurisdiction's
emergency responder radio ordinance, as applicable, for requirements.
Resolution No. 2017 -roc
Page 11 of 11
75A-23
This page left blank intentionally.
75A-24
w
SPR No. 16-03, VAR No. 17
200 N Ca
VAR No. 17-06 (The Madison)
Santa Ana Boundary
❑
Zoning
tone omuiplron
■ [�p�st [lan
C C 4 .mn L,.nn
L]C
� an,
■ .,... a [nal
—+•xraa. c+-—-�
r2 22 r
.t \\t `Tari 1 _ 250 feet s
!A
ng an
75A-25
0 7nl7 Diaital Man Prnd, t.. An nahta rr_se d.
.ni.rfar
r air ,.. r ':�y; r rJ r2f r+• r..� dLl
kO
��•--'-- , -' rev'-��,'�"�ryy
a
y
4Fd1•n
3AIUGYYVd0771060
s•x
Y; 1-z} g,
ixn -yZ IILi. 1 'ge n�f 4- d � !i
m 6C oQ :
,S s
a.
ILI 61 +I+ I
1i 1
i v a}
iii (
g v
Ji
9 v
i v
Ilkjl
s I
I��!!x I
DO
41
ii4
'S` J5 ly ,➢
2 2
1_M_ I'-1 11_i-1
W o3
_�1'
Itf
fI_
w
I =t �:, '.�
nUS
z
u
I 1-.I >.Uan . � � e• � �
�
1 �
i I-,1
��
5€
359r.99°�
i FYGnaFe..
it!asesxa_ R
Z'
c
E
E
q j aF
aal
o
nmi MH 9
2 No. 2017-05, VAR
. 201-064
-.'€VAR
THE MADISON
a o
p �.. V .. ''--ee= CABRILLO PARK
P.
'l - EXHIBIT 4
WLw
i
§ 8 $ d
s s
m
�3� j e�gieg
t 3$3€$ SITE PLAN
e, 6
-
-
xtesarnis
wvumss•x
Or.
.o•n - _ srsnsnnra.e•x -
d
-
o
b -
L
v
N
�_
-
�6 •a/
b
i
I
�
I
-
�
w
I
I
/
�
I
I r•'
I
I
At'al-�
J•1
I
J•a8{
i'a/ I
I
e
r I r
,
r��
L—LLL
J—r
I
AI•ali- 1 s
� - I
I_ 1=
I
:Utica 8
E -.1 _ IIS tl=}
W
I
C c l I==f
x
t=_I
1. u I
a
r
oI
I—
tic_I
g_
1:_.. I=_11= II
I_-1 t_rl n IF,
�n�5
e
mf7o
,
aha
E
LL
ma
I
a_
/
J
e
�
y
�
a
.u•al A'sr i•x rn s•nl
Qe
�
99
`neem
,`�
� n 3a ai�e"e8
E
d-
�'^
••••••
�xmrcv
ncnuorn
o
e -.
E5 Wj
y.
Yip yY�
a
N
e' ae:aa gpR=N g M6- s
R Na.
,7-OSIL
2017.06
@
@`a.
.
DISON
—
yi9.5
Y�Ys 0
r1�CA
LO PAR
z
e g
Sia?3 Y
x�ep#
`a
�-
-
Zo
w
iNd V
m 7n
<El
Z.2
0
1 117
S2
A;fo:r-:
--------
-;F-1 T I
W
RR mram
WA:x
A
I -..l.
t3 11/1�
MON
Mi 11
jl
Mn
XP
-- az
. ..... ... .
Hi
-G-4 I
uj:
H!a-
UH
ci
3MO Wd 077199VJ
Av
Lz
VAX
Z a
91
ua
9
P ll
-Pf �7 )r
2ij
w ms
Fi
rn a
LEI
V... C;
5i
Z -X
0 'm a% m gg
ass UaQ 4
tj
J.
E a
332
g
P. Hun Hun
Z a 55 eq I
2
A
+
Andil
tj
_ b ple i 6
ra
a cros
4
9 5V int
� f
i 1 o0 09 09
ACIAZ I
Cl I .
' a
_I
,
a _I
9,
0—
I- �AlLrdl::Ill'I
Ali
LO A
aria
mz
.1$ 1-71
F
3
KIPs
Mu
d 1 11
G
`og
F� I:-
m
I------'--
m
1.k 4
Y
_
_ggpp
ay
_ J 1
z
r�S
_y
c
a
sl -as s -x s -x r -x sl.x
MPH 3
C
u
w § : § g a_eoaa
YYY YYYYT 2�iY Y
Z£
d'GIG Ri 23^Q4 S -nit
a xx #Hf YM gp
ghkni
ffi Y m o o
wG
-Hi
SYifig RUN 'j- Y �§68ydy
!70A 4201
a 4
r is r . rr
I
�
�,1•I�
�-1� —� 1
�iTrl}+,,`y+i�• • IBa;I
�s
ttlt .
1 9 1'dilr ••:
�I
"
A
is >.
s
_ c
c a
�:�
111I111I11
a
a
' lo - 01'x,0
f;
• 11
�eyFJ�;
•-+t�'L'
::.q
S fca�3,1
�b�`sfi:Jiin_
4' 1
rrl
yrk�;�°3:fa1
�
•�l
1 j' 46
�!¢_'{ai�
�
Ilya^�
P•se,..,,,''•
i `
i
—
�
�.��
i C I II
�•
MAN
I
L L.
,:
1
'��
Isle,••
i91�I
..
L
1!..LIR—dl
a
x
k
Md
{
/
§
o molmu
J.Sr
yy,, F
• r
—tis
�u�l��al
r •
y
�4
• ���
a
r' 1�'�����
3�'•'= —
Imo,iLi
.c. :.:
1
•
II
1
,
i
�g
I
C
6
.
5 -
roma OlromB
ou n
,
0u 9
ras
i
o molmu
J.Sr
a
.11 -AG Aha JtC J.I[ JPb .OPS .1 ,![ JA2 �
E
U
C �
n`B
Q 7 y Uo
Z B 9 0 g LL
�� �nnnn�nnn
yy,, F
• r
—tis
�u�l��al
r •
• ���
a
r' 1�'�����
3�'•'= —
Imo,iLi
.c. :.:
1
•
II
1
i
�g
_
.
Mg.I.�
Mv-
WE-
VMS
a
.11 -AG Aha JtC J.I[ JPb .OPS .1 ,![ JA2 �
E
U
C �
n`B
Q 7 y Uo
Z B 9 0 g LL
�� �nnnn�nnn
I
�
I
O
a
-
�3 �meoivoie ��
e
I
I
I
LLi
IL
1 I
I d I
e
e;
13 I—
—_ --SI•.
�9
II szag ` B� I
I
N�
r
Z.2
pO.
V
b o
9 It
i'
C
g
2
o o I
I
=1 G I
I
m C
I i
_
J
•E
-+i
U
� �
5
F y drd F� EI C m
�,�tz000QQQQQ
��:
o
v
rrrrrrrrrr =
a
m
6 Ib ^S ^6 6 •b ^6 6 -b
:.
o
j
m
w
.➢
o
prgb b g' b p 6-e
NT
� •' � .mn.i �
�L�O
I � I I
Eli
N
Z
o
A7
U.�
-
s}
o
I C� SSC
a�
y;
I 1
2' z—
EE.aLLm3F1A,r
tits a �a
�_Wa
S� j
rc n
I i � �)
•ii-�� _
J
1
?d®®BPiI
FIL�LP�i
me
I
—ruG-r]tt-]i2tirtS5l Grn14�1$9 �'
- � m
J
I�Clerttml'—_
L
6
41
C
z
�o o °
s SPR ND. 216-03,
�• 6 e
"MIJ. 2,047 6, VAR No. 2077-06
0e
w,
g g` ff
E #A (SON
3
Y I�iR(L SPARK DRIVE
8 3 g" a g .�'�� ;�� a 3$g3
�" $�(FIB'�le
- ra k Y55g8ig "s. a S a s i€
a�41�1+ IONS
i .b o .6 a 59, _ _k e
& _ ICY -e ..„ .E s
+
N
rr:rrrr:rrr
�
o
T '
Bi
QF
wwvm v
r rrrrrrr
$
--..-• ___.'Y:'F.
W
;�
errrr
ff 5T_ffm
a
p'
� �" �/� '�
; • t
8tf Tit' .1
Z.
. lwxw.4.f atheN�r}'dl
X� f�if11�y
c
`
NOW
o�
r -
'gip
G$
,f�F~
�p�7
m�@
C7 e
i�MW
�.:�M
I
J
-i
M l r
i
a
c
a2
S
G S gs a s8& 3 Y 9K d 5 9
3g ka 4 8a"
=a°`c Y8� 4 i93q gyg Y = S O _ .e33
s
� h
{ r
'`•; I rr
i3
ter_.
ti
I
SPR No 207.6' VAR -No 20117y'
THE MADIS?
200 N. C A B R I CLO',:P
y v EXHIBIT...�;
BUILDING PE�R.S.�.Ps�EI
7CA AA
n 1. �G �Or �tl� ❑r%{� �' __ { {
Q
f
hz
m
!rte
°_
m
A
.8
uj
71
w
JA DV
C � r -moi
.7a�-.,_,
ods
Ja�
N O�Lci�
E
e�
n
m` t
' "X:
ff=
(rrI�JFIJ 3r llh�
t
All-
19
� Ay
,
L -
_
G _
_
R•r
•7i
m
t
'a w��i �9��V�Ya5a39etil�eg���443s3ci�a
SA130 XSVd 011ldgVO
Ap PM'BRILLO PARK DRIVE
EXHIBIT 8
7i,A,,*APE PLANS
.2017-06
Wm
"M
a
iA�M it VMb,I I1llIXO b'A
75A-45
October 3, 2017
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Mr. Robert Bistro
Linton, Law &
Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC
Greenspan, Engineers
9255 W. Sunset Boulevard, Suite 920
2 Executive Circle
West Hollywood, California 90069
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
949.825.6175 T
LLG Reference No. 2.16.3755.1
r
ww.11gengineers.com
www.ilgn
Subject: Revised Parking Demand Analysis for
Pasadena
The Madison Mixed -Use Development
Irvine
Santa Ana, California
San Diego
Woodland Hills
Dear Mr. Bisno:
As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this
Revised Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Madison Mixed -Use
Development Project (hereinafter referred to as Project). The project proponents,
Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC proposes to construct a podium style apartment
project consisting of up to 260 multi -family residential units and 6,561 square -feet
(SF) of retail/commercial space in the Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone of the
City of Santa Ana. The project site is a 2.79 -acre vacant parcel of land that is located
at 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive.
Pursuant to our discussions and understanding of the City of Santa Ana requirements,
the preparation of a parking study is required in order to validate that the proposed
Project can adequately meet its parking demand needs. This report evaluates the
Project's parking needs based application of City code, as well as a comparison to
LLG's previous field studies of actual parking demand at existing sites with similar
characteristics.
This study focused on the following tasks: Philip M. LinscotL PE =4 mi
Jack 14. Greenspan, PE lanl
a) Calculates the proposed Project parking requirements based on the application of William A Law, PE tR.0
the City of Santa Ana Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone parking ratios; Paul W. Wilkinson, PE
identifies any Code -based surplus or deficiency by comparing Code requirements John P. Keadng, PE
against the proposed supply; David S. Shondcr, PE
SPR No. 2016-03, VAR No. 2017-06, VAR No. 2017-06 John Boatman, PE
THE MADISON Clare R Look -Jaeger. PE
Richard E Be none. PE
200 N. CABRILLO PARK DRIVE
Keil D. Maberry, PE
EXHIBIT 9
PARKING
75A
D ANALYSIS a rrs:.aume.rtr �,.+e=etsm
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 2
b) Compared actual field study parking requirements for multifamily residential uses
at various locations to the requirements set forth by City Code. In addition,
compared peak parking ratios for apartment complexes referenced in the Parking
Generation (0 Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE), and Shared Parking (2°d Edition) published by the Urban Land Institute
(ULI), as well as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County;
c) Based on the parking requirement comparison assessment as stated above,
calculated the average, 85h Percentile and 95h Percentile design -level peak
parking demands and validated the adequacy of the proposed parking supply.
d) Recommend a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to ensure adequate parking is
provided for both guests and residents of the proposed Project.
Our method of analysis, findings, and recommendations are detailed in the following
sections of this report.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project site, located at 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive, is a 2.79 -acre vacant parcel of
land within the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone that is generally located north of
First Street, south of Fourth Street, east of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway and west of
Cabrillo Park Drive. The subject property is currently entitled for development of a
210,000 SF office building (Xerox Tower II). Figure I, located at the rear of this
letter report, presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the
subject property in the context of the surrounding street system.
The proposed Project includes five -stories of multi -family apartment dwelling units
over a two-level parking structure. Table I summarizes the proposed Project
development totals for the site. Review of Table 1 shows that the proposed Project
will include a total of 260 apartment homes consisting of 54 studio units, 143 one -
bedroom units, 11 one -bedroom with loft units, 44 two-bedroom units, 4 three-
bedroom units, 4 live/work units, and approximately 6,561 SF of ground floor retail
space within two (2) suites over a two-level parking garage (plus subterranean level)
with a total of 445 parking spaces. On-site facilities/amenities of the proposed Project
include a leasing office, a lounge/lobby, business center, pool/spa, a fitness center for
residents, and two roof top decks. Figures 2 and 3 present the site plan for the
proposed Project prepared by MVE+partners, for the ground floor and 2' Floor,
respectively.
N -:700!2163755 -The Madison, Smite Ana Pinking Swdy Ripon 3755 1 h Madison Perking Study 10-3-17,doc
75A-47
Mr. Robert Bistro
October 3, 2017
Page 3
PARIGNG DEMAND ANALYSIS
Parking Requirements per Overlay Requirements
To determine the number of parking spaces required to support the proposed Project,
the parking requirement was calculated based on parking information published in the
City of Santa Ana Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone, Chapter 4.0 Development
Standards, Section 4.8 Parking and Access, 3.d. Active Urban District. The following
parking ratio was used to determine the required parking:
■ Mixed-use developments with less than 10 percent of the gross floor area
devoted to commercial activity: a minimum of 2.0 spaces per residential or
live/work unit inclusive of guest parking and any nonresidential uses.
• Mixed-use developments with 10 percent or greater of the gross floor area
devoted to commercial activity: Any development proposal that devotes 10
percent or more of the development's gross floor area to a nonresidential use
shall be required to provide a parking study by a city approved consultant to
establish an adequate parking requirement for the mixture of uses in the
proposed development. In no case, however, shall a standard of less than 2.25
spaces per unit inclusive of guest parking and any nonresidential uses shall be
established.
Given the proposed Project commercial floor area, which totals 6,561 SF, equates to
less than 10 percent of the Project's total gross floor area, the Project would require
520 spaces (2.0 spaces per unit x 260 units). With a proposed parking supply of 445
parking spaces, the Project has a 75 space parking deficiency when compared to the
City's Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone parking requirements.
Comparison of Parking Ratios
Notwithstanding the requirements of City Code, the actual parking requirements for
multifamily residential uses have been found to be less than the City's own Code
requirement as represented the City of Santa Ana Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay
Zone, Chapter 4.0 Development Standards, Section 4.8 Parking and Access, 3.d.
Active Urban District. This aspect is illustrated by LLG's previous field studies of
actual parking demand at existing sites similar to the project, in addition to parking
demand/empirical ratio compilations from other sources.
Table 2 presents a comparison of site development and parking ratios from various
sources. The upper portion of Table 2 presents twelve (12) comparable sites in
Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna Niguel, and
Pasadena. Additional detail for the comparable sites is also provided inclusive of the
location, development summary, parking facility type, parking supply, presence of
N. 3700,^_ 163755 -1 he Madison, Santa Ana Parking Sludy.Re^pon'.3755 The Madison Pai king Study 10-3-17.doc
75A-48
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 4
ground floor retail, survey period, empirically derived peak parking ratio and peak hour,
and the Saturday daytime peak parking ratio and peak hour.
Table 2 indicates that the total number of apartments units for each site ranges from 142
units to 481 units and includes a unit mix of studios, one -bedroom units, two-bedroom
units, and/or three-bedroom units. Parking facilities at these locations include parking
structures, parking garages, and surface lots, with a combined parking supply for
residents and the public/guests ranging from 223 spaces to 1,020 spaces. In addition to
on-site parking, on -street parking is also available at two (2) of the facilities. More
specifically, items 6 and 7 are mixed-use developments and have a retail component
within their site similar to that which is proposed as part of the Project.
Table 2 further indicates that parking demand surveys/observations were conducted
on one to two "typical' weeknights (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday) at nine of the
comparable sites, and on a Saturday at three of the sites. These survey time periods
were selected for analyses because parking needs are the greatest during these times;
more specifically, peak demand for residential uses typically occurs during
weeknights compared to weekday daytime and weekend conditions. This parking
demand characteristic is evident from the hourly parking profiles in the Shared
Parking (2nd Edition) publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) that indicate 90%
to 100% parking occupancy between 6:00 PM and 12:00 AM/midnight, and the
Parking Generation (4th Edition) publication by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) that reports 92% to 100% parking occupancy between 10:00 PM and
6:00 AM for low/mid-rise apartments (the only residential type with this data), and
that parking demand is greater during these weekday overnight hours compared to a
Saturday condition. Based on these considerations, it is concluded that the empirical
basis for the peak parking ratios reported on Table 2 coincides with, and is
representative of, the absolute peak parking condition for each of the surveyed sites.
The tenant and guest peak parking ratio (spaces per DU) for each of the twelve
comparable sites under absolute peak conditions (occurring on a weeknight, as
explained above) and Saturday daytime conditions (where available) are presented on
Table 2. The array of absolute peak parking rates yields an average ratio of 1.35
spaces per unit, an 85" percentile ratio of 1.48 spaces per unit, and a 95th percentile
ratio of 1.61 spaces per unit. Saturday parking ratios are less, and range between 0.97
and 1.13 spaces per unit, occurring from noon to 3:00 PM.
Given that these sites are comparable in terms of apartment unit mix (i.e. one -bedroom,
two-bedroom, three-bedroom, etc.) and seven (7) of the sites come within under 100
total units compared to the proposed Project, LLG concludes that the parking ratios
derived from the twelve comparable sites are accurate representations for the unique
N 3700'216375 -I he A4xdisou, Snn[a AnalParkin@. SnuVRcpoo,3755 The Madison Parking Study 10-3-17.doe
75A-49
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 5
parking characteristics of the proposed Project that are not reflected in the City Code
ratio.
ITE's Parking Generation publication, and ULI's Shared Parking publication, as well
as other reference materials for the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga, San
Bernardino County, and Riverside County, provide peak parking ratios for apartment
complexes, as summarized in the lower portion of Table 2. These parking ratios
range from 1.37 .spaces per unit (average ratio per ITE for high-rise apartments
similar to the Project) to 1.66 spaces per unit (field studies in Ontario and Rancho
Cucamonga).
In order to provide more context behind the location and parking -related characteristics
for the most relevant sites in Table 2, we have compiled the following information with
regards to land use setting, proximity to public transit, and availability of off-site parking
(i.e., on -street spaces, nearby off-site parking spaces):
Proiect/The Madison: 200 N. Cabrillo park Drive. Santa Ana
There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate
vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the
intersections of Cabrillo Park Drive/4a' Street and Cabrillo Park Drive/First Street.
The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) is located just under a mile
to the northwest of the site, providing access to Amtrak, Metrolink, Orange County
Transit Authority, intercity and interstate bus transportation, airport shuttles, and taxi
services. The adjoining land uses to The Madison consist of mostly office and
medical office buildings, with some residential scattered throughout.
Main Street Villaee: 2555 Main Street. Irvine (1.42 spaces per DU)
There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate
vicinity of the site. There are existing bus stops located nearby, specifically at the
intersections of Siglo/Main Street and Jamboree Road/Main Street. The nearest Park
& Ride lot is located about 1.5 miles to the southeast of Main Street Village, near the
intersection of Culver Drive at Sandburg Way. The adjoining land uses to Main Street
Village consist of mostly office and residential uses.
Paragon at Old Town: 700 S. Myrtle Avenue. Monrovia (1.48 spaces per DU)
On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along
Myrtle Avenue (north of Walnut Avenue), Olive Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Ivy
Avenue. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Primrose
Avenue/Walnut Avenue. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metro Light Rail station is
located about 0.7 miles to the south of Paragon at Old Town, near the intersection of
Myrtle Avenue/Duarte Road. The adjoining land uses to Paragon at Old Town consist
of shopping/food uses to the north, residential uses to the east, and office/warehouse
building to the south and west.
N: 37003163755 - l he Aiad]3011, Sal Ila AnSParking Smdv Repon 3755'1 he Madison Parking Swdv 10-3-IZduc
75A-50
Mr. Robert Bison
October 3, 2017
Page 6
Trio Apartments: 44 N. Madison Avenue. Pasadena (1.22 spaces per DU)
On -street parking is generally permitted in the vicinity of the site, most notably along
Madison Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Union Street. Further, several paid public
parking lots are located nearby, including on the west side of Madison Avenue and a
few south of Colorado Boulevard. Existing bus stops are located at the intersection of
El Molino Avenue/Union Street, as well as various bus stops located Colorado
Boulevard. An existing Park & Ride lot is located about 0.5 miles to the northwest of
Trio Apartments, near the intersection of Marengo Avenue/Walnut Street. Further,
existing Metro Light Rail stations are located at Lake Street/I-210 Freeway (about 0.5
miles from Trio Apartments) and near Raymond Avenue/flolly Street (about 0.5
miles from Trio Apartments). The adjoining land uses to Trio Apartments consist of
mostly office and commercial uses.
Adagio on the Green: 2660 Oso Parkway, Mission Vieio (1.45 spaces per DU)
There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate
vicinity of the site. Existing bus stops are located nearby, specifically at the
intersections of Country Club Drive/Oso Parkway and Marguerite Parkway/Oso
Parkway. There is no Park & Ride facility in the nearby vicinity of Adagio on the
Green. The adjoining land uses to Adagio on the Green consist of mostly residential
uses, with a golf course to the north and south of Oso Parkway and some commercial
uses.
There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate
vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot
Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station
is located immediately east of the SR -73 Freeway, along Forbes Road (about 0.2
miles from Skye at Laguna Niguel). The adjoining land uses to Skye at Laguna
Niguel consist of mostly residential uses, with commercial uses to the east.
Apex Laguna Niguel: 27960 Cabot Road, Laguna Niguel (1.28 spaces per DU)
There is no on -street parking or other public parking facilities in the immediate
vicinity of the site. The nearest existing bus stop is located at the intersection of Cabot
Road/Crown Valley Parkway. An existing Park & Ride lot and Metrolink train station
is located about 0.3 miles to the southeast from Apex Laguna Niguel, along Forbes
Road. The adjoining land uses to Apex Laguna Niguel consist of mostly residential
uses, with commercial uses to the east.
Based on the above descriptions of six existing sites, locational and parking -related
characteristics are similar and comparable to the Project (i.e., not located in a
TOD/I'ransit-Oriented Development, with no off-site parking nearby, which can
reduce on-site parking needs), with their empirical parking demand ratios considered
to be indicative of the Project's potential parking needs. The Project will be
N:'.3700' 3163755 -I he N Iadisou, Sinta Ann Park in SrudyRepot13755 The %ladison Parking Study 10-3-1 Zdoc
75A-51
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 7
providing a supply of 445 spaces, which, when divided by 260 dwelling units,
corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.71 spaces per dwelling unit. This supply
ratio of 1.71 spaces per dwelling units is 15% to 40% greater than the empirical ratios
from the six comparable sites most similar to the Project.
Project Parking Supply versus Demand
The bottom portion of Table 2 estimates the project's parking needs based on the
application of the average, 85`s percentile, and 95h percentile parking rates from
comparable sites. For the 260 units as now proposed, it is estimated that the average
demand would be 351 spaces, the 85th percentile demand would be 385 spaces, and
the 95ffi percentile demand would be 419 spaces. Comparing the 95' percentile
demand of 419 spaces against the proposed supply of 445 spaces yields a surplus of
26 spaces.
Residential guest parking will be shared with the retail component of the Project.
Based on ULI's Shared Parking publication, the peak parking time periods for retail
uses occur on weekends between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM, which does not coincide or
overlap with the residential peak parking demand occurring on weeknights during
overnight hours.
On a theoretical basis, the "standalone" parking requirement for the 6,561 -SF retail
component of the Project would be 33 spaces (calculated based on the City Code ratio
for retail of 5 spaces per 1,000 SF). Applying ULI hourly profiles (i.e., 0% at 12:00
AM/midnight on a weeknight, and 100% at 2:00 to 3:00 PM on a weekend) to this
33 -space requirement yields no spaces for a weeknight, and 33 spaces for the
weekend, from a "shared demand" standpoint. This indicates that the retail
component will not generate any overlapping demand with the residential guest
parking during the late weeknight/ovemight peak period. During the
weekend/Saturday midday peak period for retail, up to 33 spaces for retail will need
to be shared with residential guests. Comparing the 33 -space retail demand against
the 53 guest parking spaces to be provided by the Project corresponds to a remainder
of 20 spaces for residential guest use on weekend afternoons.
The residential guest demand during weekend afternoons is estimated by applying an
empirical ratio of 1.13 spaces per unit (the greatest Saturday afternoon ratio reported
on Table 2) to 260 units, multiplying by 25% (City Code requirement for guest
parking), then multiplying by 20% (the time -of -day factor per ULI's Shared Parking
methodology), resulting in a residential guest demand of 15 spaces. Adding this 15 -
space demand for residential guests to the 33 -space demand for retail yields a total
demand of 48 spaces. Comparing the 48 -space residential guest and retail total
N: _3700 2163755 - The N lxlieon, Sana Ana' Pad: ing StudyRepor63755 the Madison Padang, Study 10-3-I Zdoc
75A-52
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 8
demand against the 53 guest parking spaces to be provided by the Project corresponds
to a surplus of 5 spaces.
Given these results, we conclude that the proposed parking supply of 445 spaces is
adequate to accommodate the Madison Mixed -Use Development anticipated parking
needs.
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
To ensure adequate parking is provided for both guests and resident of the Project, it
is recommended that a Parking Management Plan (PMP) be prepared that outlines the
proposed allocation of on-site parking supply, along with key parking management
strategies, to maximize the availability of parking for the various user groups
associated with the Madison Mixed -Use Development project.
Parking Management Plan Measures
Subject to review by the Project proponent and the City, the PMP measures described
below could be considered for implementation by the Project:
❑ The PMP should restrict residents from parking in non-resident spaces.
❑ The PMP should help develop the framework for a detailed parking
agreements between the leasing office and the tenants.
1. Provide signage to indicate which spaces on the ground floor are to be assigned
for prospective resident tenant or short-term parking for the retail component of
the Project, as determined by the leasing office/property management company.
2. Provide signage to indicate that location and number of parking spaces allocated
for resident guest usage; also identify that these spaces can also be used by
patrons of the retail business.
3. Direct employees of the leasing office and retail business to use the unassigned
parking spaces.
4. Provide signage at the resident vehicular gate on Level P1 to indicate "Resident
Parking Only"
5. Establish a program which would require residents to register their vehicle (and
provide their vehicles' license plate numbers), and pick up a gate card -key. They
should be given written parking regulations and a parking map with key
allocations to restrict them from parking in non-resident areas at any time, and
require that they inform their guests where to park.
6. To maximize the use the Project's tandem (2"d access) spaces, 44 of the tandem
spaces should be designated to each of the 44 two bedroom units, while 8 of the
tandem spaces should be assigned to the 4 three bedroom units and 4 live/work
units. The remaining 11 of the 63 tandem spaces should be made available and
W3 700'21(,375S -'Phe %Iadison. Santa Ana Pwkmg Study ReponU755 ]'he 'Madison Padang Study 10-3-17 doc
75A-53
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 9
assigned to specific units of the studio units and/or I bedroom units, as
determined by the leasing office/property management company.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Madison Mixed -Use Development Project is proposing to construct a podium
style apartment project consisting of up to 260 multi -family residential units and
6,561 square -feet (SF) of retail/commercial space in the Metro East Mixed -Use
Overlay Zone of the City of Santa Ana. The project site is a 2.79 -acre vacant
parcel of land that is located at 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive. The proposed Project
will include a total of 260 apartment homes consisting of 54 studio units, 143 one -
bedroom units, 11 one -bedroom with loft units, 44 two-bedroom units, 4 three-
bedroom units, 4 live/work units, and approximately 6,561 SF of ground floor
retail space within two (2) suites over a two-level parking garage (plus
subterranean level) with a total of 445 parking spaces.
2. This parking demand analysis validates that the proposed parking supply of 445
spaces is adequate to accommodate the parking needs of the Project.
3. Direct application of City of Santa Ana Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone
parking requirements to the proposed Project (260 DU) results in a total parking
requirement of 520 parking spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 445 spaces,
a code shortfall of 75 spaces is calculated.
4. Based on a comparison of parking ratios between twelve (12) sites within the
cities of Fullerton, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Monrovia, Laguna
Niguel and Pasadena, a 95h Percentile "design -level' parking ratio of 1.61 was
applied to the proposed 260 units which results in a parking demand of 419
spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 445 spaces, a surplus of 26 spaces is
calculated.
5. Based on the above findings, we conclude that based on the application of the 956,
Percentile "design -level' parking ratio of 1.61 derived from twelve (12)
comparable sites, adequate parking would be provided on site to accommodate the
proposed Project.
6. To ensure adequate parking is provided for both guests and resident of the Project,
it is recommended that a Parking Management Plan (PMP) be prepared that
outlines the proposed allocation of on-site parking supply, along with key parking
management strategies, to maximize the availability of parking for the various
user groups associated with the Madison Mixed -Use Development project.
Na37W2163755 _ The Madison, Sou[a Anw?ad:ino S1udy%Rcpo®3755 IInc Nudicun Parking Study I0-3-17.doc
75A-54
Mr. Robert Bisno
October 3, 2017
Page 10
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this parking analysis for The Madison
Mixed -Use Development. Should you have any questions or need additional
assistance, please do not hesitate to call Shane Green or me at (949) 825-6175.
Very truly yours,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Richard E. Barretto, P.E.
Principal
cc: Shane S. Green, P.E., Transportation Engineer III
Attachments
N^370031(,37,i _'I he bladisou. Sonia ano Parking Swdy\Rcj)ei1 3755 The Madison Pinking, Study 10-3-17.doc
75A-55
TABLE 1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY1
THE MADISON, SANTA ANA
Land Use / Project Description
Project
Development Totals
The Madison Mixed -Use Development
❑
Studio Units (603 SF Average)
54 Units
❑
1 Bedroom Units (803 SF Average)
143 Units
❑
1 Bedroom + Loft Units (803 SF Average)
11 Units
❑
2 Bedroom Units (928 SF Average)
44 Units
❑
3 Bedroom Units (1,600 SF Average)
4 Units
❑
1 Live/Work Units (1,459 SF Average)
4 Units
Total Residential Units:
260 Units
Total Retail Space:
6,561 SF
Parking Supply
❑
Resident Parking— In Access
329 spaces
(includes 911/1
❑
Resident Parking — 2nd Access/Tandem
63 spaces
❑
Guest Parking (includes 1 H/C spaces)
53 spaces
Total Parking Supply:
445 spaces
Sowce: MVE+Partners, 7/28/2017.
N'.%!-XG-3Ii �Z:S- rM1Jbdianu S]ot, A.1 .PnM.,o St.& Repnn �'.?, 1 M1c 1hRson Nil, 4,1 Snd; 10-1.17 uu
75A-66
TABLE 2
COMPARABLE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING RATIO SUMMARY
THE MADISON, SANTA ANA
Notes:
[a] Source: Parking Demand Analysis forrthe Proposed Fifth Avenue/Huntington Drive Mixed -Use Project City ofMmrrovia. Califonria. prepared by LLG. Oct 1011
[b] Source: Parking SnrdyforAMLl Orange Apartment Project, prepared by lBl Group, Nov. 2012
[c] Source: Parking Reform Made Easy, Richard W. Willson, 2013
[d] Source: Counts collected by LLG on December 2016.
75A-57
Tenant&Guest
Tenant&Guest
Peak Parking
Saturday
Ratio-
Daytime Peak
Parking
Spaces per DO
Parking Ratio
Com arable Site
City
Address
Development Summary
Facility
Parkirm Supply
Retail
Survey Period
Peak Hour(Peak
Hour)
Costa
SSOAmm�
250 Unit Luxury Apartments
438 Spaces
1.75
1
Mid -Rise Building
Mid -Rise Building
Mesa
Boulevard
'BedroomStructureUnits
80
Structure
• Residents -330 sp.
--
—
(Peak Hour N/A)
_
• 170 170 Studio/I Bedroom Units
•Guests - 108 5 .
481 Unit Apartments
1,020 Spaces
Main Street
2555 Main
• 265 1 Bedroom Units
Wednesday & Thursday
1.42
2
Village [a]
Irvine
Street
• 200 2 Bedroom Units
Structure
• Residents - 847sp.
_
IOPM-12AM
(@ 12:00 AM)
—
• 16 3 Bedroom Units
• Public/Guests - 173 sp.
279 Unit Apartments
3
279 Unit Complex
• 2 Studio Units
Gated
Tuesday
136
[b]
Irvine
—
• 162 1 Bedroom Units
Structure
600 Spaces
600(Peak
_
HowN/A)
—
• 115 2 Bedroom Units
403 Unit Complex
403 Unit Apartments
Gated
Tuesday
129
4
@]
Irvine
—
• 326 1 Bedroom Units
Structure
643 Spaces
__
6PM-IAM
(Peak Hour N/A)
• 77 2 Bedroom Units
460 Unit Apartments
Gated
5
460 Unit Complex
Orange
• 256 l Bedroom Units
Structure,
784 Spaces
Tuesday
1.4
@]
—
p
—
6PM-IAM
(Peak Hour N/A)
—
• 2042 Bedroom Units
dace
Surface Lot
Unit Complex
183 Unit Apartments
Gated
1
6
[b]
�
Fullerton
--
• 129 1 Bedroom Units
Residential
223 Residential Spaces
Yes
—
Ho wN/A)
—
• 542 Bedroom Units
Structure(Peak
250 Unit Complex
250 Unit Apartments
Gated
0.94
7
@]
Santa A na
—
• 108 1 Bedroom Units
Residential
453 Residential Spaces
Yes
—
HowN/A)
—
• 145 2-3 Bedroom Units
Structure
(Peak
8
Paragon at Old
700S.
163 Unit Apartments
Surface Lot,
404 Spaces
Wednesday & Thursday
1.48
Town [a]
Monrovia
Myrtle
• 82 1 Bedroom Units
el
• Residents 329 sp.
—
6PM-12AM
(Q 11:00 PM)
- _
Avenue
• 813 Bedroom Units
Parking
• Public/Guests - 75 sp.
44 N.
304 Unit Apartments
Surface Lot.
480 Spaces
9
Trio Apartments
Pasadena
Madison
• 46 Studio Units
On -Street
•Residents -450 sp.
—
Wednesday &Thursday
L22
—
[a]
' 1411 Bedroom Units
IOPM-12AM
(QI2:00 AM)
Avenue
• 117 2 Bedroom Units
parking
•Public/Guests -30 sp.
512 Spaces
Wednesday & Thursday
0.97
10
Adagio on the
Mission
2660 Oso
256 Unit Apartments
Garage,
• Residents
7PM-2AM
.
145
Green [d]
Viejo
Parkway
Surface Lot,�blidGusts-88
sp.
--
Saturday:l2PM-3PM,
(Q12:00 AM)
(@ 2:00 &
e is - sp.
3:00 PM)
7PM-2AM
28100
142 Unit Apartments
294 Spaces
Wednesday & Thursday
I I
Skye at Laguna
Laguna
Cabot
• 97 1 Bedroom Units
Garage
7PM-2AM
1.49
1.07
Niguel [d]
Niguel
• Residents -240 sp.
—
Saturday: 12PM-3PM,
(r@ 11:00 PM)
(@ 12:00 PM)
Road
• 45 2 Bedroom Units
• Puhlic/Guests- 54 sp.
7PM-2AM
27960
284 Unit Apartments
539 Spaces
Wetuddnesday & Thursday
12
Apex Laguna
Laguna
Cobol
• 32 Studio Units
Garage
•Resident -461 sp.
—
7PM-2AM
1.26
1.13
Niguel [d]
Niguel
• 161 1 Bedroom Units
Saay: 12PM-3PM,
(Q 2:00 AM)
(@ 3:00 PM)
Road
, yl 2 Bedroom Units
• PublidGuests- 78 sp.
7pM-2AM
Average:
_ . _ 135
85th Percentile:
1.48
95th Perentile:
1.61
Additional Parking Ratio References:
ITE Parking Generation, 41h Edition High -Rise Apartment
Average:
137
85th Percentile:
1.52
ULIShared Parking: Residential (Rental) Units
1.65
Field Studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga [c]
1.58-1.66
American Community Survey (ACS) in Ontario [c]
1.62
Household Surveys in San Bernardino and Riverside c
1.45
Parking Calculation Using Empirical Rates Above(280 DU's for the Madison)_
Average Demand (135 x 280 DUs):
85th Percentile Demand (1.48 x DUs):
_ _
414
95th Percentile Demand (1.61 x DUs):
451
Notes:
[a] Source: Parking Demand Analysis forrthe Proposed Fifth Avenue/Huntington Drive Mixed -Use Project City ofMmrrovia. Califonria. prepared by LLG. Oct 1011
[b] Source: Parking SnrdyforAMLl Orange Apartment Project, prepared by lBl Group, Nov. 2012
[c] Source: Parking Reform Made Easy, Richard W. Willson, 2013
[d] Source: Counts collected by LLG on December 2016.
75A-57
LLOL-80-90 8Y99!01 dM
_;
_NC51 _ L _SCSI
vuR_
1.__
rtxsl—
��
exL
t h,e atyeY r
IF
L—__—
is 4 77 1
LL
0.
�Ns(n Ave _,
Tu _ NTv,tin Ave_-_--lL TuaNI Aver nf�- -
z.. LI,L_
Is
qq
--Po'kCeNnD__ a Is l fi�P� v s e
J Cl Q j?
`IO NON,PIaO
3
/ Gab IIID Pra1kU - - Wffitb Palk Or
—Nu tl
L
G i J L
N l
his _J
NM,f,t
a
tleAiZ
-ter NLmwGRvJ LAN Lnn+O'A Kre ® E:4i - .
?_:N M1SCoy St- 1
N mCCIy'SY � i" GESCI YS! _ .! � SG!uigAve
' �;
NGand Ave NGrarid'Avc�I t— .
It
i —
L_—NE.vsleoaB Avz _ _ fN tlnuay Sl.J
75A-58
I
s ;say a an do adVd077IM
A.
fii�l :fit �z•..u.� �gi >,`�r '-r ;19i
�lerlfiFll
�' IAssI i :@
b
Com -
t
11
/L�rC,4i!1I ',FIT"�t
I
.. :.'. I
t�
_
I
I I$ I
tt1 1 I 3 {,• rr I,F 11 I I CII _I I I
t I I E I I_ l FI l1 '
a-.0
ij
n.Z
L
5 1
LI rl_E1 {s l
F11 F,
-� .gl I�; I"IiaR pp51R
Fal
75A-59
In
75A-60
3
Y
all
a
75A-60
111
Ll
11111111 ' S C ri: 4 D LD
q
ir4;:p,,F7
IL
Inv-'
11111111 ' S C ri: 4 D LD
Hliq
M ad eH1ull
s I
Nri ui d
Y
n n IN NI n rv. � ry N ry n n n n in n n
I I I I I I N gig 1 1 1 1
� 12$A A �a
gigk : g pm
x� 9§9
A Ott
I �3 kk
9.
K
75A-62
0
k rv;ry rv� rvrvn� Nrv�ry ryry rvin N�ry ry{hry NrvM{rvrvry{ry rvinn
Si, ry ry j
l5gIo
geg 8111'x959 $I-�'�'x
wPx x I I Po b=X x I xx
8axK' xK` tgI' 29901 R B:xJ
I I
g g g g �6 g g Fill I
3 Al
59 9
0
e^�lsli
I�� .�
75A-63
75A-64
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 2016-03; DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2017-05 FOR
REDUCED PARKING; AND, DENYING VARIANCE NO.
2017-06 FOR INCREASED SIDE YARD SETBACK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEVEN -
STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH UP TO 260
UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 NORTH
CABRILLO PARK DRIVE
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. Robert Bisno with Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC (Applicant) is
requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, Variance No. 2017-
05 (reduced parking), and Variance No. 2017-06 (increased side yard
setback), to allow the construction of a seven -story mixed-use
development with up to 260 units at 200 North Cabrillo Park Drive.
B. On December 11, 2017, 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.
C. The Metro East Mixed Use (MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ) 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.
D. Sections 41-595.4 and 41-595.5 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC)
require a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a zoning
district classification combined with an OZ suffix where the applicant
wants to apply the overlay zone, to ensure the project is in conformity with
the overlay zone plan.
E. Pursuant to the MEMU Overlay Zone Section 8.1, the Planning Commission
is authorized to review and approve all site plan review applications to
ensure that buildings, structures, and grounds will be in keeping with the
EXHIBIT B
Resolution No. 201746
Page 1 of 3
75A-65
compatibility standards and design principles of the MEMU Overlay Zone
and will not be detrimental to the harmonious development of the city or
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the MEMU Overlay
Zone.
F. The zoning designation for the subject property is Metro East Mixed Use
(MEMU) Overlay Zone (OZ -1) in the Active Urban sub -zone.
G. The Planning Commission determines that upon review of the project, it
cannot recommend granting the Site Plan Review approval as proposed
pursuant to Section 8.2 of the MEMU overlay district and determines that
the following finding has been established for Site Plan Review No. 2016-
03:
1. That the land use, site design, and operational considerations in the
proposed development plan have not been planned in a manner
that will result in a compatible and harmonious operation as
specified in Section 7 of the MEMU overlay district. Based upon
public hearing testimony and the two proposed variances, the site
design could have the potential to cause negative parking and
traffic impacts upon surrounding properties and development.
H. The Planning Commission determines that all of the findings required for
granting Variance No. 2017-05 pursuant to SAMC 41-638 could not be
made. Instead, the Planning Commission determines that the following
finding has been established for Variance No. 2017-05 (reduction in
parking):
1. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The site does not meet
minimum parking requirements. Based upon public hearing
testimony and the proposed variance for reduced parking, the
project may potentially negatively impact traffic flow and impact
neighboring properties resulting in a detriment to the public.
The Planning Commission determines that all of the findings required for
granting Variance No. 2017-06 pursuant to SAMC 41-638 could not be
made. Instead, the Planning Commission determines that the following
finding has been established for Variance No 2017-06 (increased side
yard setback):
1. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including its size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings. The strict application of the zoning ordinance is not
found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of the Zoning
Code.
Resolution No. 2017-46
Page 2 of 3
75A-66
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the
public hearing, hereby denies Site Plan Review No. 2016-03, denies Variance No. 2017-
05 for reduced parking, and denies Variance No. 2017-06 for increased side yard setback.
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
December 11, 2017, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and
oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
DENIED this 11" day of December 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: ALDERETE, BACERRA, CONTRERAS-LEO,
MCLOUGHLIN, VERINO (5)
NOES: Commissioners: MENDOZA, NGUYEN (2)
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners:
Mark McLoughlin
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
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. 2017-46 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Santa Ana on December 11, 2017.
Date:
Recording Secretary
City of Santa Ana
75A-67
Resolution No. 2017-46
Page 3 of 3
75A-68
Planning and Building Agency
Planning Division
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988 (M-20)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
(714) 647-5804
I. OWNER/APPLICANT
Applicant CABRILLO COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
APPEAL APPLICATION
0.0aFniBISAb Pull name or Person, Firm, or Corporation ( 310) 277-3787
Mailing Address Area Code Phone No.
Legal Owner Name: cnear.:oeaeauvnrPnmNces, uturm: naasareisvor
Legal Owner Address: 9255 W. SUNSET BLVD. SUITE 920
LOS ANGELES, CA 90069
Phone No.: (310 ) 277-3787
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION
Fax: (
Land Use VACANT LAND METRO EAST OVERLAY ZONE ACTIVE URBAN DISTRICT
Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation
Location ?JCNGl UOPMKV=s SMRAM&l N. LAEg6:OP AIRQ 8Et8 Ha2tT
Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
REASON FOR REQUEST
In the follovAng provided space, please clearly specify and explain the error(s) of decision or
requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach
additional comments to the back of this application.)
APPEALING THE DECEMBER 11, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 2016-03 AS CONDITIONED, VARIANCE NO. 2017-05 AS CONDITIONED & VARIANCE
NO. 2017-06 AS CONDITIONED. WE APPEAL BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
(1) OBLIGATION TO OCFA SETBACK REQUIREMENT FORCING SETBACK VARIANCE
(2) ECONOMIC NECESSITY FOR PARKING VARIANCE
(3) SUFFICIENT PARKING CA WE
ALL ATTACHED TO THIS P �N
Applicants Signature:
omia,or-emtappP.al
Emo
Date: 12/20/2017
APPEAL APPLICATION NO. ZD I I -S-Af C-
EXHIBIT C
Page 1 of 9
75A-69
IRVINE
1900 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92614
MVE T 949.809.3388
+ P A R T N E R S
www.mve-archilects.com
To: Santa Ana City Councilmembers
From: MVE+Partners (on behalf of Applicant Robert H. Bisno)
Date: December 20, 2017
LOS ANGELES
888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2170
Los Angeles, California 92604
T 213.805.7600
Re: The Madison Mixed Use Community
200 North Cabrillo Park Drive, Santa Ana, California
- Obligation to OCFA Setback Requirement Forcing a Setback Variance
- Sufficient Parking Capacity & Economic Necessity of a Parking Variance To Permit
Development On The Property With No more Than 1.8 Parking Spaces Per Unit (468 total
parking spaces)
Obligation To OCFA Setback Requirement Forcing Setback Variance
. The proposed project attempts to amend an existing Planning Commission & City
Council approval (April 2015) which allows 217 residential units and 441 parking stalls at
200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive. Beginning September 2016, The Applicant began re -designing
the project to include 280 residential dwelling units and 500 parking stalls. The Applicant
worked with Planning Staff and OCFA to retain much of the original design intent and
quality, building footprint, residential character and fire department emergency access.
On June 13, 2017, Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) denied various
Alternative Means & Methods (AM&M) in lieu of Fire Department Access. Up until that
date, The Applicant spent approximately ten months negotiating currently approved
AM&M to be applied to the proposed design. Ultimately, OCFA declared 100 percent
perimeter access to the proposed design was required. A copy of OCFA's formal
response is attached to this appeal application.
This OCFA fire access obligation required a 20ft wide fire lane (plus an additional
10ft ladder setback) to the South and West borders of the proposed project. The total 30ft
setback forced a re -design of the entire building, both above and below grade. The result
is the proposed project before you, (20 fewer units and new garage plans at all levels).
The new garage plan forced a full subterranean parking plan, maximizing the parking at
468 parking stalls (1.8 parking ratio).
Sufficient Parking Capacity
The proposed development at 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive provides 468 parking
spaces, which support a ratio of 1.8 parking stalls per unit. This parking ratio provides a
sufficient parking ratio to a diverse grouping of residential dwelling unit types. These
75A-70
2017-1220 PC Appeal_Memo1
12/20/2017
Page 2
1--mv. LTA 0
+ P A R T N E R S
dwelling unit types include Studios, One -Bedroom, One -Bedroom plus Loft, Two -
Bedroom, Three -Bedroom and Live/Work unit types.
The 468 parking stalls include 53 stalls that are shared amongst the potential
residential guests and retail patrons. These 53 parking spaces are located on the ground
floor and will be reserved for guests and shared with the two on-site modestly sized retail
tenants. The remaining 415 parking spaces will be solely devoted to the 260 residential
units. Below is a breakdown of how the 415 residential parking stalls are being allocated
towards the 260 residences.
PARKING BREAKDOWN BY UNIT TYPE
STUDIO (1 SPACE)
1BDR/1BA (2 SPACES; TANDEM)
3BA12BA (2 SPACES; T
TOTAL RESID. PARKING PROVIDED
54UNITS = 54STALLS
UZUNI I S
= 'I b4; I ALL;
11UNITS
= 22STALLS
11UNITS
= 22STALLS
43 TS
= 86STALLS
04UNITS
= 08STALLS
04UNITS
= 08STALLS
260UNITS
= 415STALLS
The analysis above highlights the fact that unit mix is an important aspect of
parking ratios and having only a 20% ratio 2Bdr/3Bdr/Live-Work units does not require a
2.0 parking ratio to sufficiently park all appropriate unit types. The analysis above also
illustrates the proposed project dedicates two parking spaces to 155 residences
(60% oftotal residential units). Within these 155 residences. 104one-bedroom units
are allocated two parking stalls. The remaining 105 residences (studio and one -
bedroom units) would be provided with one parking space.
According to Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone Section 4.8(A)(3)(c) "Mixed-use
Developments with less than 10 percent of the gross floor area devoted to a commercial
activity. A minimum of 2.0 spaces per residential or live/work unit inclusive of guest
parking and any nonresidential uses."
The Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone is currently undergoing internal staff
discussion and a "technical review" to consider alternatives to the current 2.Ostalls per
unit parking requirement. One of the alternative options to replace the current parking
requirements include a 1.8 parking ratio over the entire MEMU Overlay Zone. Further
information from Planning Staff was provided to Santa Ana Planning Commission on both
November 27'" & December 111h public hearings. On December 11, 2017 Santa Ana
75A-71
2017-1220_PC Appeal_Memo1
1 2/2 0120 1 7
Page 3
+ P A R T N E R S
Planning Staff supported and recommended the approval of the proposed project (based
upon a 1.8 parking ratio) to the Planning Commission.
Below are examples of parking requirements for neighboring jurisdictions:
- City of Irvine
o
Studios
1.00 parking stalls per unit
0
1 Bedrooms
1.40 parking stalls per unit
0
2 Bedrooms
1.60 parking stalls per unit
0
3 Bedrooms
2.00 parking stalls per unit
o
Guest Parking
1.00 stall for every 4 units
o
The Madison equivalent totals:
421 stalls=1.62stalls/unit
- City of Huntington Beach (Mixed -Use District)
o
Studios
1.00 parking stalls per unit
0
1 Bedrooms
1.00 parking stalls per unit
0
2 Bedrooms
2.00 parking stalls per unit
0
3 Bedrooms
2.50 parking stalls per unit
o
Guest Parking
1.00 stall for every 5 units
o
The Madison equivalent totals:
365 stalls=1.40stalls/unit
- City of Anaheim (Platinum Triangle)
o
Studios
1.25 parking stalls per unit
0
1 Bedrooms
1.50 parking stalls per unit
0
2 Bedrooms
2.00 parking stalls per unit
0
3 Bedrooms
2.50 parking stalls per unit
o
Guest Parking
N/A
o
The Madison equivalent totals:
405 stalls = 1.56stallslunit
- City of Long Beach
0
0 Bedrooms (not more than 450sgft)
1.00 parking stalls per unit.
0
1 or more Bedrooms
1.50 parking stalls per unit.
0
2 Bedrooms or more
2.00 parking stalls per unit.
o
Guest Parking
1.00 stall for every 4 units
o
The Madison equivalent totals:
454 stalls=1.75stalls/unit
The neighboring jurisdictions above support comparable parking ratios. In addition
to providing a parking ratio that is regionally supported, The Applicant has attempted to
be responsive to traffic impact concerns from the southern neighbor (Xerox Center
Tower). The proposed 1.8 parking ratio not only provides ample parking per the proposed
unit mix, but slightly increases the total parking above what is currently entitled. It is worth
noting the approved entitlement allows The Applicant to pursue 441 parking stalls on this
site (approved by Santa Ana Planning Commission April 13, 2015). The proposed project
75A-72
2017-1220_PC Appeal_A%erno1
12120/2017
Page 4
I--Uvl L7
+ P A R T N E R S
(468 parking stalls) provides 27 parking stalls above the existing entitlement. Resulting in
a 6 percent increase over the existing entitlement.
Economic hardship would be incurred in providing additional parking and another
subterranean level. The economic hardship is detailed below.
Economic Necessity For Parkins Variance
The proposed development of the Madison's 260 units requires a parking ratio of
no more than 1.8 parking spaces per unit (a total of 468 parking spaces) to be
economically viable. A parking ratio of no more than 1.8, or 468 total spaces is a complete
economic necessity for the property to be developed as requested.
It is difficult to develop on the property for several reasons, including the property's
lack of accessibility to the 5 freeway and being surrounded on two sides by large office
buildings. Thus, "Podium Parking" (parking that is directly under the above grade
structures as compared to parking that is beside the above grade structures) is
necessary. This is an extremely expensive way to park but results in an increased number
of units compared to other parking designs, thus increasing City fees and overall
economic activity. It is also seen by residents and guests as creating a superior design.
Other property owners and third -party developers have thoroughly reviewed
alternatives to develop the property and all have concluded that to provide an
economically viable apartment community, the parking must be under the building, as
opposed to a separate above grade parking structure.
Of note, the cost of parking is shown in the marketplace as being a significant
deterrent to the development in the area. Specifically, there have been no apartments
with Podium Parking in this area. Across the street, the apartment community known as
Nineteen 0 1, has separate above grade parking, and importantly, this parking existed at
the time the developer, Lyon Communities, purchased the property, so no additional
parking cost was necessary for the projects viability. Additionally, the nearby Colton office
park, on Cabrillo Park Drive, recently fell out of escrow as the party proposing to purchase
the property, Lincoln Property Company, was unable to bankroll a viable apartment
community.
While there has been talk of other developments in the immediate neighborhood
this talk is nothing more than lines on paper as there is no demonstration of a viable
apartment community that can be developed in the subject neighborhood with Podium
Parking of more than 1.8 per unit and, in fact, there is no development in the subject
neighborhood of any apartment development with Podium Parking at any level.
75A-73
2017-1220_PC Appeal_Memo1
12/20/2017
Page 5
MW
+ P A R T N E R S
The Applicant urges you to review the proposed project in relation to the above
appeal. The Applicant also asks your consideration of Santa Ana Planning Staffs
Recommendation of Approval to the Planning Commission. We have provided Santa
Ana Planning Staff with adequate traffic and parking analyses, plans, sections and
diagrams of the proposed project.
75A-74
mento
To:
Santa Ana City Councilmembers
From:
Robert H. Bisno
Date:
December 20, 2017
Re:
The Madison Mixed Use Community
200 North Cabrillo Park, Santa Ana, California
Economic Necessity Of A Parking Variance To Permit
Development On The Property With No More Than 1.8 Parking
Spaces Per Unit (468 total parking spaces)
As members of the Council know, I am a real estate developer and have
been so for many years. I have developed in Santa Ana (City Place) and many
other communities. Developments I have participated in include developments
with parking of all types from multi-level fully underground parking to parking on
grade to above grade parking structures.
I have reviewed the rental market for 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive, Santa Ana,
California (the ("Property") and am familiar with construction costs in the Orange
County area. Additionally, I have consulted other real estate developers doing
business in Orange County and throughout California to determine the viability of
Podium Parking at more than 1.8 parking spaces per unit (468 parking spaces in
total) for the subject property. 'Podium Parking" in this memorandum is parking in
a concrete structure under residential units, as opposed to parking in a separate
structure. Podium Parking is significantly more costly than parking in a separate
structure (often called "Wrap" parking, as the residential units wrap, so to speak
around the parking). Podium Parking provides a more desirable living environment
and allows more residential units per acre, increasing city revenues.
I have not spoken to any developer who believes they could profitably
develop a Podium Parking apartment or mixed use community on the Property if
they were required to build greater than 1.8 parking spaces per unit, unless
significant other concessions were received, such as reduction or elimination of
fees to the City or less than market financing, tax credits or similar incentives. Most
importantly, constructing more parking is a waste of resources and not required to
properly operate our proposed community.
Page 7 of 9
75A-75
z
This demonstrates that there is an economic necessity for a parking
variance allowing the development of the Madison mixed use community with a
parking ratio of no more than 1.8 parking spaces per unit.
I note that nowhere in the neighborhood of the Property has any developer
actually developed any of the more desirable and revenue generating (for the City)
Podium Parking product.
Page 8 of 9
75A-76
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
Community Risk Reduction Department
A O. Box S711 S, Irvine, CA 92619-711S • I Fire Authority Road, Irvine, CA 92602
Planning and Development Services • wgwocja.org • (714) 573-6100 /Fax (714) 368-8843
CORRECTION NOTICE
June 14, 2017
Project: OCFA Service Request SR 213755
The Madison 200 N. Cabrillo Park Drive STA
Reviewed by: Ruben Colmenares, FPA, rubencolmenares@ocfa.org 714-573-6118
Service Code: PR145, Fire Master Plan (FMP)
PR 910, Alternate Materials and Methods Request (AM&M)
The plans submitted for the project referenced above have been reviewed. The information or corrections identified
below are needed to demonstrate compliance with 2016 California Fire and Building Codes (CFC/CBC), adopted
standards and guidelines, and policies and best practices utilized by OCFA.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLAN PROCESSING
Fees
Plans were submitted under service code(s) PR145 and PR910. This project incurred additional staff time and
resources beyond the base fees. Additional fees for time and materials of
HOSE PULL & BUILDING ACCESS
Fire Department Access
Per CFC 902.2.1, all portions of the perimeter of the first story of all newly constructed buildings shall be located
within 150 feet of a fire apparatus roadway or public way as measured along a route simulating the path of a
firefighter. Currently, portions of the rear of the proposed building exceed this "hose pull" distance.
Approximately one third (330 feet at the rear) of the proposed structure exceeds this distance and is "out of access."
OCFA Guideline B-09.
Alternate Materials and Methods
The intent of Section 503 (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) is to provide the first responders with sufficient access to
buildings to enable efficient fire suppression and rescue operations. While the proposal provided a variety of
building features, it did not provide an equivalency to meet the intent of Section 503. The proposed alternative
mitigation method (AM&M) was evaluated by multiple levels of the OCFA's staff. It has been determined that
based on the additional mitigation measures proposed (standpipes, drywall, rooftop bridge, compartmentation, etc.)
that an acceptable equivalent in lieu of fire access was not established.
summary
Using the 2016 CBC, taller, sub high-rise, combustible construction (wood framed) buildings are allowed by code.
To the extent possible, this specific design utilizes maximum allowances of the code for allowable height, number
of floors and areas; including exceptions to gain mezzanine level living areas. While all of these features are
permitted, during an actual fire incident, fire protection of taller wooden buildings and surrounding exposures to
other buildings inherently requires more intensive and elaborate exterior fire ground staging. This means additional
emergency response vehicles on -scene. Furthermore, the ability to get fire ladder truck apparatus around the
building's exterior to effect emergency and rescue services to the uppermost portions of the building above the third
floor to perform various fire tactics and operations such as rooftop ventilation, is standard operations for emergency
personnel. It should be stated that ground ladders are ineffective past 35 feet and therefore in accordance with our
internal standards and the California Fire Code minimums, the requirements for fire access roads are essential.
S,n'mg tb. CBies of, Also V* . B. Park . Cypress . Dam PoW . hvine • Lagma Hills • Iagr Nig== . lacuna Woods • L*c Forest . rn Palma
Im Abrefros . Minh.N 4.. Pbtt im Rancho Smog M.,garim . San Clemente . Sam limn Cepva.. Sams Arne • Sc.I Bcacb . Stommn . Tustin • Y:Ib Pmrk -
\Vestminslar. Yorbo Li.&. amd Uniexorpomfcd Areas orOmnge Coumy
Page 9 of 9
75A-77
75A-78
HIBIT D
c
� � 2m
Q 4
o .
a
g
H9€$€iIf 1€€$€€91 M
€ RHM1111111 IMM, g 111
oE
b � ��3
�S®® Q gg aa $$ ggg@g l�gpAaeQgfgSppllQQ ssgggg gggg55aagg
X333 s :] �^:�: �44�9�i��@�4� 49@��34584494�89��ii7iiiiii'<<: i'< i Z4II � i7937i
y_ .c
9 kg
7 ". 1 . ,r A
02
w
i � � g u t3 C7y �� � ��S;t� ���� e
EC E
3�
� �°.Li" tl:. �� � �c•`
LLI
— :-t
° oCEI
e
$�LZ
$R
t�gnq €�
so
=
}K43 Kg El
3.R ] �S
� 2 ESS
�§{B�e �y�� ;p�3C� �
C
tl
�¢¢y�y�,
G
2�
S6 g��
WgE °�•
iGg[aE6dp
r
y 5 4gk
Fhp€3
p� g�qg�p
g
395
o
$Q�t3 Ify�1dB6�Sg{5i{i55�g�g,��GG�@gE@g
�$ E s E
_; $
° a •
�ap tt8
e�@Hs��a R ixe340k Be8`a:8 G
a€5�
Fa,
2,n
3
3
i
.7-...
e @ : pp 55q��
Ct��CaCC��K4�$61:C A �R
REE3..'d:Sso.adC6ae��a ry k g 3 q
dd 3wi
P
HIBIT D
c
a�a
iiiiiii
: OUR
9
�
e
m
o.
e
KKEE
91
KKYg K
Min
pA
a$
288
H
jYg7E pity
i��(jF�'yyKsI,
0
i
yE
$
s
�
e
m
o.
e
E
0
U
E.J
e
01 e
_o
IN ;e 306 W OTM80 I3 zO
eme II II
[YLa•-!17¢74 (iii-+J_n.`•�e �A �4 �rtt
y , y
¢ C
�`ri � 7 •§ �z �2 • $i 'I � li� � d�e 3 �i
til
� @li
� tt�� ggyy gg 99yygg yygg g9 ���������
Y= 3Y� Y�YYa Yid 4
GGGG" GG` G
19
i8±
Off popS
H
L L
-- --- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - --
�
||III |
9UllINI
b ; || m
M
§!\
t
�
|4
�+
]
{
(
\ }
\
§|!
� )
S
�2§||§)|\k§
\
�
.
f
i.\
;
L.2
||III |
9UllINI
b ; || m
M
§!\
t
�
|4
�+
]
{
(
§|!
�2§||§)|\k§
Qm
z a
Nt
WA
m
LLI 2if
Rl
pde
LZ
w
E
ca
2
� �' yM1, e
e �
' • �
1 ■ 1� I
i4 •� e1�
w� �? vr¢ �' ��� I
r r
I �—
,g
6 _ N Ti/ � `
S bi ! 1� ] �_ "�
r. r{'
Y� ui
_. i
i' b.4
�i i"
/ r
E
a
I. _ �—ia
e ''��'{', U44;
la 'I ;'l
R`S'f�^' g __ / bM't e
J% P'yf � .4K S j f _
�! :�:_
.l F l%
r ,c" _ IE'
Rna-.,.,- 'ti�
r�' f—. �j
ry i ��_ J � i�'� '.
-� • + a
.ICY It � � �[l 4
�°� r fJ ' �—�af u
� �
4R� 2 ■ Y
i� � I F . �c a '` `�:
"�® �s�s" =.-i ��:: Ili j�� ti! `_.
�„'°` r��# �� 111 -; � L .. 4 I
Fr".T'�3it�,�i6na �S+11w.n.Yl.u�: ;�,� r � � �
�� P _E �,
�� ,� '�`~
� � � I G S '" y]W�yy+
¢E j' :�
��
TWA
f
..... . . . . . .
Al
4
L
..... . . . . . .
Al
�. � -�'i'" 1, � -• .a � �.
F �i �%f•
X34 " "i 2e++• ar ,, +y Y
It
IN
I
Ef
i
3 int SY =a
9 ®1 WE fH
u rat ®A me
s sss v9� 1
0
�o
6
2
6
U
d
A
a
D
c
E
0
U
O
'C
m
m
�f
THE MADISON
SANTA ANA, CA
DRAFT ECONOMIC IMPACT AND GENERAL FUND FISCAL REVENUE ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
CABRILLO COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC
Prepared by:
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
Telephone: (714) 692-9596
Fax: (714) 692-9597
Web: www.natelsondale.com
January 15, 2018
EXHIBIT E
75A-91
SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
1.1. Organization of the Report ......................................................................1
1.2. Scope of the Study.................................................................................1
1.3. Project Description.................................................................................2
1.4. Categories of Regional Economic Benefits Considered in the Study...............3
1.5. Study Methodology.................................................................................4
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................. 5
2.1. Short-term (Construction) Impacts to Regional Economy ............................5
2.2. Permanent Impacts to Regional Economy..................................................6
2.3. Fiscal Revenue Impacts...........................................................................7
3.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY ........................................... 9
3.1. Industry Output and Value Added.............................................................9
3.2. Jobs Created and Employee Compensation................................................9
4.0 ONGOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO LOCAL ECONOMY ................................ 12
4.1. Industry Output and Value Added........................................................... 12
4.2. Jobs Created and Employee Compensation .............................................. 12
5.0 - ANNUALLY RECURRING FISCAL REVENUE IMPACTS TO CITY'S GENERAL
FUND.......................................................................................................... 15
5.1. Property Taxes..................................................................................... 15
5.2. Sales Taxes.........................................................................................15
Appendix A: Derivation of Inputs for IMPLAN Model —Construction Phase
Appendix B: Derivation of Inputs for IMPLAN Model/Fiscal Revenue Projections —Ongoing Benefits
Appendix C: IMPLAN Model Glossary
75A-92
TABLE
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1-1: Summary Project Description (Residential Component) —The Madison....................................2
Table 1-2: Summary Project Description (Commercial Component) —The Madison...................................2
Table 2-1: Summary of Construction Phase Impacts (Sum of Direct, Indirect, and Induced) The Madison
6
Table 2-2: Summary of Ongoing Impacts (Sum of Direct, Indirect, and Induced) The Madison..................7
Table 2-3: Summary of Annually -Recurring Fiscal Revenue Impacts to City's General Fund The Madison.8
Table 3-1. Summary of Economic Impacts by Impact Category, CONSTRUCTION PHASE The Madison....
10
Table 3-2: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, City of Santa Ana The Madison ............
11
Table 3-3: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, Orange County The Madison................11
Table 4-1: Summary of Economic Impacts by Impact Category, ANNUALLY -RECURRING The Madison ...13
Table 4-2: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, City of Santa Ana The Madison.............14
Table 4-3: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, Orange County The Madison................14
Table 5-1: Projected Annually -Recurring Property Tax Revenue —City of Santa Ana The Madison ..........
15
Table 5-2: Projected Annually -Recurring Sales Tax Revenue — City of Santa Ana The Madison ................16
75A-93
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report evaluates the regional economic benefits that would result from construction of the
proposed The Madison mixed-use development in the City of Santa Ana, California. The proposed
development includes 260 units - consisting of a mix of studio, live/work, one-, two-, and three-bedroom
apartments — along with ground floor retail space (6,561 square feet).
The economic impact analysis focuses on city -level and regional (i.e., county -wide) economic benefits
that will be generated during the construction phase of the project, along with annually -recurring
benefits resulting from new residents' spending on local retail goods and services and
management/operation of the apartment complex. These economic benefits are quantified in terms of
the number of jobs created, the total wage/salary income associated with these jobs, and the overall
volume of economic output (i.e., total business activity) supported by the project.
Along with regional economic benefits, this analysis also evaluates annually -recurring fiscal revenue
impacts to the City's General Fund.
1.1. Organization of the Report
This introduction summarizes the project description and describes the scope of the study. Chapter 2
provides a brief summary of the project's City -level and regional economic benefits, which include the
short-term economic impacts related to construction of the project, along with the ongoing impacts
resulting from new residents' local expenditures and management/operation of the apartment complex.
In addition to the regional economic benefits, this section also summarizes the project's fiscal revenue
impacts to the City's General Fund. Chapter3 provides further details on the construction -related
economic impacts, while Chapter 4 provides further details on the ongoing economic impacts. Chapter 5
provides additional detail on the projection of fiscal revenues to the City's General Fund. Appendix A
provides documentation of the construction -phase data inputs used in the economic impact analysis.
For the ongoing benefits generated by the new residents and management/operation of the apartment
complex, Appendix B provides documentation of the resident -spending assumptions and data inputs
used in the analysis. Finally, Appendix C provides a glossary of the economic impact measures evaluated
in this analysis.
1.2. Scope of the Study
The analysis considers direct economic impacts (e.g., on-site forthe construction -phase) as well as
indirect and induced, or "multiplier", benefits in the City and in the remainder of Orange County. The
analysis estimates the following types of economic impacts:
• Construction -phase impacts
o Direct construction employment by year for the project build -out period
o Direct construction payroll
o Indirect/induced (i.e., "multiplier") jobs and payroll
o Other construction -related benefits (i.e., local spending)
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 1
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-94
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ongoing (permanent) impacts
o Employment generated by new resident spending, the ground floor retail space, and overall
property management of the apartment complex
o Direct payroll for new jobs
o Indirect/induced (i.e., "multiplier') jobs and payroll
o Direct and indirect/induced economic impacts (i.e., dollars spent in local and regional
economies)
Along with economic impacts, the analysis evaluates the annually -recurring fiscal revenue impacts to the
City's General Fund.
All projections provided in this report are expressed in 2018 "constant" dollars (i.e., not escalated for
future inflation).
1.3. Project Description
Table 1-1 and Table 1-2, below, provide a summary of the proposed development, including average
annual rent per unit and average household income project households and estimated annual retail
sales associated with the ground floor retail space.
Table 1-1: Summary Project Description (Residential Component) —The Madison
Apartment Unit Annual Rent Per Rent as a Share of Avg. Household
Total Unit Income* Income
260
$29,892
0.35 $85,407
*Average household income estimate assumes monthly rent accounts for 35% of monthly
income. The applicant has indicated that they qualify renters at 35% of gross income, but that
the average renter will likely fall into the 23%-28% range. Relying on the higher income factor
provides for a more conservative analysis, in that it yields a lower average household income
estimate. Average household income estimates are used to derive resident spending patterns
(see Sections 4.0 and 5.0), with higher household incomes correlating with higher resident
spending.
Source: Applicant; TNDG
Table 1-2: Summary Project Description (Commercial Component) —The Madison
Sq. Ft. of Ground
Floor Retail Space
6,561
Source: Applicant; TNDG
Sales per Sq. Ft
of Space
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
$300
Estimated Annual
Sales
$1,968,300
75A-95
Page 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.4. Categories of Regional Economic Benefits Considered in the Study
The proposed project will generate the following types of economic benefits in the City and regional
economy:
Direct Benefits — Direct benefits relate to: a) short-term business activity of general contractors
and associated business (architecture services, engineering services, etc.) involved in the project
construction and b) the ongoing local spending by new residents and expenditures to managing
the apartment complex.
Indirect Benefits— Indirect benefits will result when local firms directly impacted by the project
in turn purchase materials, supplies orservices from otherfirms. Examples would include
increased sales of building materials as a result of construction activity, along with purchases of
local goods and services associated with managing and operating the apartment complex.
Induced Benefits— Induced benefits relate to the consumption spending of employees of firms
that are directly or indirectly affected by the project. These would include all of the goods and
services normally associated with household consumption (e.g., housing, retail purchases, local
services, etc.).
Based on construction cost data provided by the applicant, all construction -phase direct benefits are
tied to construction -related expenditures within the City and the County; impacts from construction -
related expenditures made outside of the County (e.g., loan fees, interest, marketing, etc.) are not
evaluated in this analysis. The analysis quantifies the above benefits in terms of the following measures:
• Total industry output—The increase in gross industry receipts, representing the total economic
activity generated by the construction phase and from local spending by new residents. For local
retailers, output equals gross margin and not gross sales.
• Value added —The portion of total output that most accurately reflects local economic activity
(i.e., local payrolls, profits, taxes, as distinct from gross output which includes the value of
intermediate goods [construction raw materials] purchased outside the region)
• Jobs — expressed in this analysis in terms of full-time and part-time employees lasting one year
• Employee Compensation — associated with the created jobs
As discussed further below, these are the categories of benefits evaluated by the economic modelling
software used for this analysis. Appendix C (glossary) provides additional technical definitions of these
economic benefit categories.
' Employee compensation includes total payroll cost of the employee paid by the employer. This includes wage and
salary, all benefits (e.g., health, retirement) and payroll taxes (both sides of social security, unemployment taxes,
etc.)
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 3
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-96
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.5. Study Methodology
This analysis used the IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) economic impact modeling software to
evaluate the project's one-time construction impacts, along with ongoing impacts resulting from new
resident local spending'. This software is classified as an "Input -Output" (10) model that computes all of
the economic impacts of industries in a user -defined region (in this case, the City of Santa Ana and
Orange County), including the estimated local expenditures of employees of both project -direct and
supplier firms. The current version of the IMPLAN model divides the economy into 526 sectors that
correspond to 4 -digit and 5 -digit NAILS codes'. For construction activity, the IMPLAN modeling system
relies on data from the compiled U.S. Census Bureau instead of the NAILS system.
The report appendix documents all of the assumptions used in this analysis to translate project -specific
data into IMPLAN model inputs. As shown in Appendix A, construction -related impacts are based on
anticipated construction values provided by the applicant. These construction values were matched to
the appropriate IMPLAN construction sector for the impact analysis. Ongoing (permanent) impacts are
based on new resident spending (on local retail goods and services), along with expenditures related to
management/operation of the apartment complex, as shown in Appendix B. The tables in Appendix B
also show the assumptions used to estimate new residents' household income levels and associated
local spending on retail goods and services. It should be noted that the analysis treats resident -related
spending as "new" spending in the City and in the County. Although some residents at the proposed
apartment complex may already reside in another location in the City or County, by moving these
residents would create an occupancy that would be filled by new households in the City or County. Thus,
the treatment of residents' local spending as net increases in sales in the City and County is a valid
assumption for purposes of the analysis.
' This model was developed by researchers at the University of Minnesota and is widely used in economic impact
analysis throughout the Country.
3 As excerpted from the U.S. Census Bureau's website, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is
the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of
collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. The NAICS system is
hierarchical in each level of the system provides an aggregation of detail at the next lower level. For example,
there are 20 2 -digit industry groups that are further subdivided into 99 3 -digit industry groups. Further
disaggregation continues to the 6 -digit level, which includes 1,175 disaggregated industries.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-97
Page 4
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1. Short-term (Construction) Impacts to Regional Economy
This section provides a summary of the project's construction -phase impacts to the City and Orange
County. The summary includes the sum of all direct, indirect, and induced impacts, as shown on Table
2-1 on page 6. The total construction -related impacts would include the following:
Output: At buildout the project's one-time construction activities would generate approximately $98.9
million in total economic activity in the City, through direct, indirect, and induced impacts. In addition,
the project would generate approximately $15.3 million in total economic activity in the remainder of
the County. Thus, the project would generate approximately $114.2 million in total economic activity in
Orange County.
Value Added: At buildout the project's one-time construction activities would generate approximately
$65.9 million in total value added in the City, through direct, indirect, and induced impacts. In addition,
the project would generate approximately $10.5 million in value added in the remainder of the County.
Thus, the project would generate approximately $76.4 million in total value added in Orange County.
Employment: At buildout the project's one-time construction activities would generate approximately
584 jobs in the City, through direct, indirect, and induced impacts. In addition, the project would
generate approximately 93 jobs in the remainder of the City. Thus, the project would generate about
677 total jobs in Orange County^.
Employee Compensation: At buildout the project's one-time construction activities would generate
approximately $31.7 million in total employee compensation in the City, through direct, indirect, and
induced impacts. In addition, the project would generate approximately $4.4 million in total employee
compensation in the remainder of the County. Thus, the project would generate approximately $36.1
million in total employee compensation in Orange County'.
As noted above, this total includes both part- and full-time employees. Based on factors provide in the IMPLAN
model, the construction phase would generate approximately 626 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the County.
5 Employee compensation is a "fully loaded" payroll estimate, including all benefits (e.g., health, retirement) and
payroll taxes (both sides of social security, unemployment taxes, etc.). Based on factors provided in the IMPLAN
model, the project would generate approximately $30.2 million in salaries/wages in Orange County.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 5
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-98
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-1: Summary of Construction Phase Impacts (Sum of Direct, Indirect, and Induced)
The Madison
City Remainder of County
Impact Category Total County Total
Output (OOOs) $98,940 $15,296 $114,236
Value Added (OOOs) $65,912 $10,512 $76,424
Employment 584 93 677
Employee Compensation (OOOs) $31,729 $4,355 $36,084
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
2.2. Permanent Impacts to Regional Economy
This section provides a summary of the permanent benefits to the City and Orange County. These
benefits would result from local spending (i.e., in the City and in remaining areas of the County) by new
residents, along with expenditures associated with managing/operating the apartment complex. The
summary includes the sum of all direct, indirect, and induced impacts, as shown on Table 2-2 on the
following page. The permanent impacts would include the following:
Output: On an annual basis, new residents and the apartment complex would generate approximately
$8.2 million in total economic activity in the City, through direct, indirect, and induced impacts. In
addition, these two sources would generate approximately $1.7 million in total economic activity in the
remainder of the County. Thus, the project would generate approximately $9.9 million in total economic
activity in Orange County on an annual basis.
Value Added: On an annual basis, new residents and the apartment complex would generate
approximately $5.5 million in total value added in the City, through direct, indirect, and induced
impacts. In addition, these two sources would generate an additional $1.1 million in value added in the
remainder of the County. Thus, the project would generate approximately $6.6 million in total value
added in Orange County on an annual basis.
Employment: On an annual basis, new residents and the apartment complex would generate
approximately 77 jobs in the City, through direct, indirect, and induced impacts. In addition, these two
sources would generate approximately 11 jobs in the remainder of the County. Thus, the project would
generate approximately 88 total jobs in Orange County on an annual basisb.
6 As noted above, this total includes both part- and full-time employees. Based on factors provide in the IMPLAN
model, the construction phase would generate approximately 76 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the County.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 6
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-99
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employee Compensation: On an annual basis, new residents and the apartment complex would
generate close to $2.6 million in total employee compensation in the City, through direct, indirect, and
induced impacts. In addition, these two sources would generate approximately $0.5 million in total
employee compensation in the remainder of the County. Thus, the project would generate
approximately $3.05 million in total employee compensation in Orange County on annual basis'.
Table 2-2: Summary of Ongoing Impacts (Sum of Direct, Indirect, and Induced)
The Madison
City Remainder of County
Impact Category Total County Total
Output (0005)
$8,229
$1,697
$9,926
Value Added (000s)
$5,493
$1,083
$6,576
Employment
77
11
88
Employee Compensation (000s) $2,563 $486 $3,049
Source: TN DG; IMPLAN
2.3. Fiscal Revenue Impacts
The project would generate two primary sources of annually -recurring revenue to the City's General
Fund: Property Taxes and Sales Taxes. New property taxes would result from the incremental assessed
property value generated by the project, while new sales taxes would be generated by project residents'
retail expenditures at retail establishments located in the City (and in the onsite ground floor retail
space). As shown on Table 2-3, on the following page, the project would generate about $268,000 in
new property taxes, in addition to approximately $72,000 in new sales tax revenue. Combined, the two
revenue sources would generate about $340,000 in annually -recurring revenue to the City's General
Fund.
7 Employee compensation is a "fully loaded" payroll estimate, including all benefits (e.g., health, retirement) and
payroll taxes (both sides of social security, unemployment taxes, etc.). Based on factors provided in the IMPLAN
model, the project would generate approximately $2.3 million in salaries/wages in Orange County on an annual
basis.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 7
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-100
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 2-3: Summary of Annually -Recurring Fiscal Revenue Impacts to City's General Fund
The Madison
General Fund Category City Total
Property Taxes'
Sales TaxZ
Total
$267,831
72,225
$340,056
Notes: 1. Includes general Property Tax and Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF
2. Includes General Sales Tax and Property Tax In -Lieu of Sales Tax
Source: IMPLAN; City of Santa Ana; TNDG.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-101
3.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
3.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
The project's construction phase would create a substantial number of jobs and fuel the local Santa Ana
economy, in addition to the remaining areas in Orange County, with secondary spending. To illustrate
the economic impacts of the project's construction phase, this study uses an econometric tool known as
an "Input -Output" (10) model, which computes all of the construction -related impacts of the affected
industries in the City, and in the remainder of the County, including the estimated local expenditures of
employees of both the construction and supplier firmsa.
These economic benefits are expressed in terms of increased economic activity ("output"), value added,
job creation, and employee compensation. See Table 2-1 on page 6 for a summary of the economic
benefits for the total project. The discussion below in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 summarizes the total project
construction -related impacts.
3.1. Industry Output and Value Added
During the construction phase the project is projected to directly generate approximately 66.7 million in
total economic activity in the City, resulting in approximately $45.5 million in value added. In addition to
its direct impacts, the indirect/induced impacts during project construction would include approximately
$32.2 million in total economic activity, resulting in approximately $20.4 million in value added (see
page 2 for definitions of "direct", "indirect" and "induced"). Thus, accounting for the full range of
economic benefits in the City, during its construction phase the project will generate a grand total of
approximately $98.9 million in total industry output and approximately $65.9 million in value added.
In the remainder of the County, the project is projected to directly generate approximately $3.1 million
in total economic activity, along with an additional $12.2 million from indirect/induced impacts. This
total economic activity would generate approximately $10.5 million in value added in the remainder of
the County.
3.2. Jobs Created and Employee Compensation
During the construction phase the project is projected to generate approximately 359 directly related
jobs onsite and approximately 225 jobs through indirect and induced economic activity. These are
quantified as full- and part-time jobs lasting the equivalent of one year. Thus, accounting for the full
range of economic benefits in the City — through direct, indirect, and induced activity — the project will
generate about to 584 jobs during the construction phase. The employee compensation associated with
these jobs would total approximately $31.7 million.
In the remainder of the County, the project is projected to directly generate approximately 11 jobs,
along with an additional 82 jobs from indirect/induced impacts. The employee compensation associated
with these jobs would total approximately $4.4 million.
8 The IMPLAN model was used for this purpose. This model was developed by researchers at the University of
Minnesota and is widely used in economic impact analysis throughout the Country.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 9
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-102
3.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
Table 3-1. Summary of Economic Impacts by Impact Category, CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The Madison
Category
City
Total
Remainder of
County
County
Total
output (000s)
11,122
1,758
12,880
Direct
$66,725
$3,082
$69,807
Indirect
17,572
2,418
19,990
Induced
14,643
9,796
24,439
Total
$98,940
$15,296
$114,236
Value Added (000s
Direct
$45,521
$2,387
$47,908
Indirect
11,122
1,758
12,880
Induced
9,269
6,367
15,636
Total
$65,912
$10,512
$76,424
Employment
Direct
359
11
370
Indirect
126
16
142
Induced
99
66
165
Total
584
93
677
Emplovee Compensation (000s
Direct
$21,204
$556
$21,760
Indirect
6,050
816
6,866
Induced
4.475
2,983
7,458
Total
$31,729
$4,355
$36,084
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 10
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-103
3.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
Table 3-2 and Table 3-3, below, show the top 10 economic sectors affected by employment impacts in
the City and in Orange County. The employment and employee compensation numbers include the sum
of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. As shown in the tables, approximately 305 jobs would be
created in the multifamily residential construction sector (IMPLAN Sector 60), with an average employee
compensation of more than $59,000 perjob.
Table 3-2: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, City of Santa Ana
The Madison
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Table 3-3: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, Orange County
The Madison
Employee ....
IMPLAN Employees Compensation/
Sector Description Compensation Job
60
Construction of new multifamily residential structures
304.9
$18,053,515
Employee
IMPLAN
Construction of other new nonresidential structures
Employees
Employee
Compensation/
Sector
Description
19.9
compensation
Job
60
Construction of new multifamily residential structures
304.9
$18,053,515
$59,208
58
Construction of other new nonresidential structures
23.7
$1,410,678
59,596
56
Construction of new highways and streets
19.9
$1,212,734
61,073
395
Wholesale trade
13.5
$1,226,260
90,641
406
Retail - Miscellaneous store retailers
13.3
$245,072
18,402
403
Retail -Clothing and clothing accessories stores
11.1
$277,888
25,114
401
Retail -Health and personal care stores
10.7
$504,775
47,145
399
Retail - Building material and garden equipment and supplies stores
10.4
$465,169
44,682
398
Retail - Electronics and appliance stores
8.3
$465,309
56,003
407
Retail - Nonstore retailers
7.6
$142,882
18,808
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Table 3-3: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, Orange County
The Madison
Employee ....
IMPLAN Employees Compensation/
Sector Description Compensation Job
60
Construction of new multifamily residential structures
304.9
$18,053,515
$59,208
58
Construction of other new nonresidential structures
23.7
$1,410,678
59,596
56
Construction of new highways and streets
19.9
$1,212,734
61,073
440
Real estate
16.6
$364,753
21,997
395
Wholesale trade
14.6
$1,326,776
90,641
406
Retail -Miscellaneous store retailers
14.5
$267,677
18,402
403
Retail -Clothing and clothing accessories stores
12.2
$307,474
25,114
401
Retail- Health and personal care stores
11.8
$555,838
47,145
449
Architectural, engineering, and related services
10.8
$1,022,591
94,833
399
Retail - Building material and garden equipment and supplies stores
10.7
$477,522
44,682
Note: Includes City of Santa Ana totals
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page t I
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-104
4.0 ONGOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
4.0 ONGOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
The proposed project will generate ongoing benefits to the local economy, in addition to the remainder
of Orange County, from the following two sources. First, new apartment residents will generate
economic impacts in the local economy through expenditures on local goods and services (including at
onsite retail). Second, the management and operation of the apartment complex will generate impacts
in the local economy. Appendix B provides detailed tables on the assumptions and data inputs for
estimating ongoing economic benefits, along with a narrative description, forthe IMPLAN model.
These economic benefits are expressed in terms of increased economic activity ("output"), value added,
job creation, and labor income. See Table 4-1 on page 13 for a summary of the annual economic
benefits for the total project. The discussion below in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 summarizes the total ongoing
economic benefits from the two sources discussed above.
4.1. Industry Output and Value Added
The project's direct annual impact, from new resident local spending (including at onsite retail) and
management/operation of the apartment complex, to the City economy would include approximately
$5.6 million in total economic activity and approximately $3.9 million in value added. In addition to its
direct impacts, the indirect/induced impacts of the project would include approximately to $2.6 million
in total economic activity and approximately $1.6 million in value added (see page 3 for definitions of
"direct", "indirect" and "induced"). Thus, accounting for the full range of economic benefits in the City,
on an annual basis the project will generate a grand total of more than $8.2 million in total industry
output and approximately $5.5 million in value added.
In the remainder of the County, the project is projected to directly generate approximately $242,000 in
total economic activity, along with an additional $1.5 million from indirect/induced impacts. This total
economic activity would generate approximately $1.1 million in value added in the remainder of the
County.
4.2. Jobs Created and Employee Compensation
The project, from new resident local spending and management/operation of the apartment complex,
would directly support approximately 61 jobs and a total annual payroll of approximately $1.8 million. In
addition to direct impacts, the indirect/induced economic impacts from the project would support
approximately 16 jobs and a total annual payroll (including benefits) of approximately $796,000 in the
City. Thus, the direct, indirect, and induced economic activity associated with the project would support
approximately 77 jobs and a total annual payroll (including benefits) of close to $2.6 million in the City.
In the remainder of the County, the project is projected to directly generate approximately 2 jobs, along
with an additional 9jobs from indirect/induced impacts. The payroll and benefits associated with these
jobs would total approximately $486,000.
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-105
4.0 ONGOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
Table 4-1: Summary of Economic Impacts by Impact Category, ANNUALLY -RECURRING
The Madison
Category
City
Total
Remainder of
County
County
Total
Output (000s)
8
3
11
Direct
$5,643
$242
$5,885
Indirect
1,367
573
1,940
Induced
1,219
882
2,101
Total
$8,229
$1,697
$9,926
Value Added (000s)
424
166
590
Direct
$3,856
$144
$4,000
Indirect
865
367
1,232
Induced
772
572
1,344
Total
$5,493
$1,083
$6,576
Employment
Direct
61
2
63
Indirect
8
3
11
Induced
8
6
14
Total
77
11
88
Employee Compensation (000s)
Direct
$1,767
$51
$1,818
Indirect
424
166
590
Induced
372
269
641
Total
$2,563
$486
$3,049
Source: IMPLAN; TNDG
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 13
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-106
4.0 ONGOING ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO LOCAL ECONOMY
Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, below, show the top 10 economic sectors affected by employment impacts in
the City and in Orange County. The employment and employee compensation numbers include the sum
of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. As shown in the tables, approximately 29 permanentjobs would
be created in the Retail -Miscellaneous store retailers (IMPLAN Sector 406), with an average employee
compensation of more than $18,000 perjob.
Table 4-2: Top 10 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, City of Santa Ana
The Madison
IMPLAN
Sector
Description
Employees
Employee
Comensation
p
Employee
Compensation/
Job
406
Retail - Miscellaneous store retailers
28.9
$531,387
$18,402
501
Full-service restaurants
7.4
194,171
26,132
502
Limited -service restaurants
4.3
99,513
23,330
440
Real estate
3.7
82,140
21,997
400
Retail - Food and beverage stores
3.5
122,114
34,640
403
Retail - Clothing and clothing accessories stores
2.1
53,211
25,114
397
Retail - Furniture and home furnishings stores
2.0
80,836
41,023
504
Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes
1.9
90,825
48,946
398
Retail - Electronics and appliance stores
1.7
94,113
56,003
437
Insurance carriers
1.6
212,578
133,520
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
Table 4-3: Top 30 Industries Affected in Terms of Employment, Orange County
The Madison
Note: Includes City of Santa Ana totals
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-107
Page 14
Employee
IMPLAN
Employees
Employee
Compensation/
Sector
Description
Compensation
Job
406
Retail - Miscellaneous store retailers
29.3
$538,622
$18,402
501
Full-service restaurants
8.5
223,035
26,131
502
Limited -service restaurants
5.0
116,313
23,330
440
Real estate
4.4
96,493
21,997
400
Retail - Food and beverage stores
3.8
132,085
34,640
403
Retail - Clothing and clothing accessories stores
2.3
56,881
25,114
504
Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes
2.1
104,066
48,946
397
Retail - Furniture and home furnishings stores
2.1
85,811
41,023
503
All other food and drinking places
1.8
41,470
23,297
398
Retail - Electronics and appliance stores
1.8
99,348
56,003
Note: Includes City of Santa Ana totals
Source: TNDG; IMPLAN
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-107
Page 14
5.0 ANNUALLY RECURRING FISCAL REVENUE IMPACTS TO CITY'S GENERAL FUND
5.0 ANNUALLY RECURRING FISCAL REVENUE IMPACTS TO CITY'S GENERAL FUND
The project would generate two primary sources of annually -recurring revenue to the City's General
Fund: Property Taxes and Sales Taxes. The discussion below in Section 5.1 summarizes the annually -
recurring property taxes that would be generated by the project. Following, Section 5.2 provides a
summary detailing the projection of new sales tax revenue that would be generated from project
residents' retail expenditures in the City.
5.1. Property Taxes
As shown on Table 5-1, below, the project is projected to generate close to $268,000 in annually -
recurring property tax revenue to the City's General Fund. In addition to general property tax revenues,
the City also receives separate property tax payments from the State in -lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
revenues. Based on a review of City budget data and assessed value informations, these two
components of property tax revenue are equal to approximately 0.27% of total assessed valuation in the
City. Applying this factor to the project's estimated assessed valued yields the incremental property tax
revenue projection shown on the table below.
Table S-1: Projected Annually -Recurring Property Tax Revenue — City of Santa Ana
The Madison
Property Tax Variable
Estimated Assessed Valuel
Amount
$99,196,604
Property Tax as a Share of Incremental Assessed Value'
City's Incremental Property Tax Revenue $267,831
Notes: 1. Based on estimated of hard costs (including on-site, off-site, and garage)
and land costs
2. Includes general property tax and property tax in -lieu of VLF
Source: Project applicant; City of Santa Ana, Adopted Budget- Fiscal Year 2016-17,
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2017;TNDG.
5.2. Sales Taxes
As shown on Table 5-2, on the following page, the project is projected to generate approximately
$72,000 in annually -recurring sales tax revenue to the City's General Fund. New sales tax revenue will be
generated from new resident local spending at retail establishments in the City (including at onsite
retail), as described above in Section 4.0. As shown on the table, 1.0% of taxable sales is reimbursed
9 City of Santa Ana, Adopted Budget and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC.
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-108
5.0 ANNUALLY RECURRING FISCAL REVENUE IMPACTS TO CITY'S GENERAL FUND
from the state (0.75% sales tax reimbursement plus 0.25% sales tax in lieu). See Appendix B, Tables B-4
and B-5, for a derivation of the projected resident -generated taxable sales in the City.
Table 5-2: Projected Annually -Recurring Sales Tax Revenue — City of Santa Ana
The Madison
Sales Tax Variable
Resident Taxable Retail Purchases
Amount
$8,206,164
Percent of Resident Taxable Retail Sales Captured in Santa Ana 88%
Total New Taxable Retail Sales in Santa Ana
New Sales Tax Revenue at 1.0% of Taxable Sales
Source: IMPLAN, Tables B-4 and B-5
$7,222,509
$72,225
THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 16
DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis
The Madison (Santa Ana, CA)
75A-109
0
0
E
z
gv
CL
a �CL
CL
X L
O 0
o
zIL r Y
W C 7
0 0 Y
a C H
0 0
O 0
C u
0
Y
�L
d
0
75A-110
75A-111
O N h N N O O N O O M N O
N
l0 N
N
N p1
m O O a 0
N
C
l0 O
C C
O O
W M W R O m N
W
W
J
O m
N (YI N
N V M IYI N N
O
V l7
o a N
N Ol W l0 W N M
a
u m
N W
n W Po
M N N N m H
o
N m
M N
N
n
m h
C
N
IC
Q
O O
O O O O
O
N N O O Ol O O
W
W N N
p
NO N tOp
M
^
O
V ate+
C
O uat
N
O
C
O
N
E
E u
v
O
N
O
N
lD N
vNf n
M O O a 0 0
w
W O
O O N
Ol N lZ lD N O
m
o m
ri ni ri
oo
m e v vi -i
W i
N
N
h
A
h
H
H
UI
u_
N
j
H ry
O
v
In H
C
O Y
N N
pp 2
v
6
ry Y
J
C
N
CZI N
L�� C
7
y
'c
C
O C
y J
m
O N
m
m
u
E
O d
J >
_?
E O E2
m
L C Z
c
m
0 r
3
a
E _
3 v
o
3
o v
v
E E
Y
u
3
C v J
v a
x
a v.
o
x
y
c
c c
�0000
xvms
t�v"
H
VI Y _• N
m C
C
N O
O O O U.
U
u
'L
V U
6
a?
5
A W J Y ry
J c
C C C O
o
u
u
J N a O L U C
m u v
o
> u
u° uv u 3
0=
z a a
z
J
a u
m
N
n o n W rn o v
r
�uvi
>utDi
u^i v00i� m
mvv-t
75A-111
a
0
0
2
z
5
a
m � a
X LC
O 41
Z m
w c
a
CL 'o
a 5 m
c
o O
c
O
Y
f0
N
75A-112
75A-113
L
Q
m
0
O
a)
bfl
Y
C
O
V
a
C
m
Y
U
a)
L
Y
a
a)
O
Q
O
Q
a)
L
O
a)
Q
0
Y
C
v
E
a)
ba
C
m
E
a)
L
O
Y
a
Y U
m m
v oN"
Na
v N
O CL
p O
a) Q
N
� v
Y Y
Y
Q m
C N
Q)
m
N N
a a
al C
L
Y
N aJ
vQ
a E
OO
Q y
W C
m al
v E
m
m Q
F- m
C
N
C
O
`
aJ
7
a
o
Y
w
o
a
°
°>
>
3
Y
=
l
a
s
f0
L
Y
m
o
0
m
O
N
o
v
v
Q
v
o
0
Y
ar
90
m
a)
L
Q
U
U
U
u
m
a
lr
O
7
m
Y
a)
N
ax)
>
C
i
wm
C
E
L
~
O
O
O
N
N
aJ
.00
r
vOi
N
L
3
dl
m
-0
O
aL.+
"
v1
y
C
a
;.
a
v
O
Y
0
S
T
C
U
N
0
m
N
O
v
U
ba
N
E
a)
Ltio
C
L
3
u
:3
GJ
C
O
Y
3
N
al
>
Q
m
y
m
y
Y
+'
fO
Q
0
3
a)
N
m
Y
E
=
E
m
C
•N
al
L
vyi
d
m
a)
Fl
E
C
a>
Q
N
d
a
Y
L
L
''
Q
N
Y
m
a
E
Q
m
L
a
m
Y
Y
a)
CLa
x
u
N
E
L
W
O
m
V
L
Y
YO
(V
O
o
v
Y
o=
0
3
v
ba
c
a
m
0
N
C
U
O
L
0
m
O
N
u
y
to
C
ate.
C
V
•N
a
O
O
O
O•
°
N
°0_
d
'o
O
L
N
•m
u
Q
a
u
v
a
am+
u°
0
O
3
v
m
,v,
'°
aci
aOi
'0-
m
I
a
.
N
u
a_
vin
m
e
a+
°
v
o
c
u
o
v
W
Q)
Q
'-
tO
Q
O
N
0
2
U>
E
m
a)
`
C
L
m
w
C
a
m
C
T
m
O
Y
O
Y
Y
N
Y
O
a)
E
a)
a)
0
al
Z
a)
a)
O
Q)
aL-.
m
N
a)
N
m
O
�
a
m
C
Y
L
N
`�
O
CL
Y
m
N
C
L
N
V)
a
C
N
Y
'00
v
u
°'
m
N
O
a)
N
a)
am+
'm0
O
C
m
y
>
Q
O
E
'x
u
Q
a
C
O
m
a]
L
>�
O
L
O
E
yOj
N
m
C
00-0
O
Y
L
N
O
Y
i
Z
a
O
Q
E
di
Y
a)
r
ba
C
L
o
`n
o
a
E
a
m
7
m
L
ba
—
u
3
L=
E
O
Co
G
G
z
m
N
Y
.°
�
l
c>
v
c
3
W
v
E
a
a
o
Y
O
�,
\
a)
m
C
�
L
C
w
m
0)
m
u
m
+'
w
T
N
C
O
N
Q
E
Y
E
T
00
N
p
u
m
Q
mCL
a)
C
Y
C
m
b0
a)
N
[L
7
°'
L
a)
N
a)
fl'
p
V
a)
a
L
L
+L-'
p,
Y
O
U
U
U
Y
F-
aJ
7
C
m
a)
a
Q1
v
m>
�
L
N
-p
+'
'-'
N
C
O
M
a
a
Y
co
C
N
C
m
O
V
Y
O
X
O
am+
a)
a
' CO
p
O
m
C
C
.-
a)
m
a)
p
Q
c
E
E
Y
L
v
L
0
c
a
a
a
a)
2i
m
a
O
c
V
YO
y
Y
C
w
L
Q
U
m
m
O
-I
7
Y
v
m
O
U
a
m
p
aJ
F-
m
m
L
r
p
m
L
a)
T
C
a!
m
N
m
3
C
L
N
>-
a
C
C
O
�'
CU
a7
L
E
a
L
Y
Y
U
°
Y
u
o
N
(a
o
v
°
N
D
'^
v
a
a
Q
c
^
m
a
o
:°
9°
N
Co
0
a)
•Q
v
o
c
e
.N
O
O
N
L
m
L
m
y
U
Y
L
mc
W
b0
O
ai
Y
C
v
V
m
m
Co
N°
c
ba
m
W
Q
c
U
u
Y
m
CL
u
`-
c
`�
v
m
m
ar
a)
L
m
'�
v
a
v
aTi
N
m
E
E
L~
E
E
N
M
v-
y
c
E
to
V
O
N
V
_
C
0
a
C
O
C_
C
a)
b0
m
mC
o
N
u
aJ
O
0
Q
0
d
>
l
Y
Y
C
m
a%
a%
N
U
X
a)
(n
L
6
°
ai
Q)
W
ar
°
v
N
u
a)
Q)
V
U
3
O-
u
a
O
L3
a
t—
N
Q
m
N
N
L
a)
Tm
mTm
L
E
Q)
O
F-
vmTNi
2i
>
O
al
0
0O
O
cY
O
'0
.
u
iQO
o
u
a
vUE
CN
Q`
L
>
mO
LO
E
L
N
Ol
m
.D
M
d
mY
i
v
O
3
y
'V
C
N
C
co
ba
t 0
mImn
VI
L
N
[O
a)
Y
u
p
v
E
N
N
v
L
O
C
y
.n
a)
C Vl
d
V
9
0
N
L
O
3
c
m>°
ao
m
N
m
o
m
m
u
c
°
x
m
m
a
0
(U
F-
m
E v>
F-
vt
J
L
o
1
o
W
w>
u
w
N
=
C
M
C`
L
a)
H
Q
75A-113
L
Q
m
0
O
a)
bfl
Y
C
O
V
a
C
m
Y
U
a)
L
Y
a
a)
O
Q
O
Q
a)
L
O
a)
Q
0
Y
C
v
E
a)
ba
C
m
E
a)
L
O
Y
a
Y U
m m
v oN"
Na
v N
O CL
p O
a) Q
N
� v
Y Y
Y
Q m
C N
Q)
m
N N
a a
al C
L
Y
N aJ
vQ
a E
OO
Q y
W C
m al
v E
m
m Q
F- m
E
a
v
75A-114
a
m
m
o
o
a
I�
N
Q1
N
w
w
a
E
\
0
V
0
6]
U
O
E
f0
C
L
10
T
f0
Y
\
�
c
w
Ul
L
c
C
"O
s
x
ao
l7
m
.a
o.
ti
u
75A-114
Mil
z
M M o 0 o m v m v vii v v v v a m a m v v v
N
�D O O M M V M M M O M� r M N N m t m e W m
.4 .4 tri c4 O O N O O O O V w
M
m`
L
N
M N t0 m M m 0 w N w
CM m m N l0 Vf h N V1 tD CO vt of m l!1 m H N M N V1 V N V1
vt m m m M -V- n O N N 0
O ul N N N N vLl1 N .-I N D N N N VI 1-:
E
Q
N N
N
u
v �
N
N
6 'O
m
a
c �
p' E
_n c N � o• " h
v
c N
W L L pap Oap 2 n L U C YO O. a
a v
m E E `� `� 'v" .c 2$ o uX, v y w A a a u
a o o a a a pp N a E a c c o
c >> c c L v m n� m`
C O>» Ma 0 .a V C u j Z 6> L i a O
Q x a a v
WW
._c-
m m m O w m N v v c> t v c c u
o
0 0 0" u w 0 0 a v m L a a+ v- a> >.vc o m o
Q LL LL LL Q Q U x 2 Q> (.7 O> S:E 0:E Q 90 LL K f
75A-115
v
v
0
0
Y
O
0 O
O
O
L
C
C
N
Ya
a
3
c
c
v
a
v
u
E
E
v
v
V
O
N
Q1
N
a
N
U
X
_
C
N
m'
=
a
C
O
`o
m
`m
`m
N
O
pap
c
0
pp
m
m
c
E
t
y
a
E
C
C
n
a
L
d
c
L O
fp
N`
s
c
m
u
m
o
t
o
c
a
o
o
m
a
o
N
>
c>
c
-a
`O
v
c
i
v
a
a
y v`
a
y
c
mu
m
n
n
m
o
m
n
o o
v
E
E
0
w N
N
N c
c=
m=
c
m a
c
0
c
w
�
m>
o
`n
`u
c v
E
u o
.�
v
v
v`
r
o`
v
w
ip
u
u
w
o u
o
0 o
w
u
o
N
a
o
w
c
a
o
o
c m?
u
v
u
N
0
a N
aLL�
LL
N
�:!
LL
V
G U
0 u
u S
S
W
Vj
W
S
V1 G
-
•N
N
N
-E
Y O
y,
N
m
m
m
N Y
a>>
d Y
Y
Y
m
2
Y
Y N
a i
0 w_
-
a
v
3
v
w
w
w
E
v a
z
Q=
o a
s x w
a
M
a
w
w
w
a
a v
z
M M o 0 o m v m v vii v v v v a m a m v v v
N
�D O O M M V M M M O M� r M N N m t m e W m
.4 .4 tri c4 O O N O O O O V w
M
m`
L
N
M N t0 m M m 0 w N w
CM m m N l0 Vf h N V1 tD CO vt of m l!1 m H N M N V1 V N V1
vt m m m M -V- n O N N 0
O ul N N N N vLl1 N .-I N D N N N VI 1-:
E
Q
N N
N
u
v �
N
N
6 'O
m
a
c �
p' E
_n c N � o• " h
v
c N
W L L pap Oap 2 n L U C YO O. a
a v
m E E `� `� 'v" .c 2$ o uX, v y w A a a u
a o o a a a pp N a E a c c o
c >> c c L v m n� m`
C O>» Ma 0 .a V C u j Z 6> L i a O
Q x a a v
WW
._c-
m m m O w m N v v c> t v c c u
o
0 0 0" u w 0 0 a v m L a a+ v- a> >.vc o m o
Q LL LL LL Q Q U x 2 Q> (.7 O> S:E 0:E Q 90 LL K f
75A-115
z ..
g 0 0 rl N M O 00 V) I� M b N V h I� N H N 00 V 00 N V l0
Cd V V Vel M M V V M C M V M V C C M V M a a V
G N
Ql m m t0 l0 lD M O m O d' O N T n .--I N Ol N M v1 M M
CN O O vt vt Ol m utof N t� M N n N lD M b m N N
O m n n N N N tp O 1� N Ol W N O T a ti 0 I� N r at N
O M N I 'i N N V rl rl M ti M M
a
N
l0 O O M M V M V O a0 M O M tD rl Vf N N Cl UO Ol .-I \O Ol
�W m
`m
t
h
a
ju
a
¢ a
W c
m
a
c � c
W E
O a a O
n E E'a
w .0 .Oc OWp m N j N u w O¢ v w W G E O N
W o o
E
W x co n u u¢
m fO N N O O (O O! W C> u Y U 30
L "W o 5 V J
> a LL L O L W W O OO O O W aLL a>LD>
o¢
75A-116
� N
N
W
SU
o
N
s
VI
Y
Y
O
O
O
O
^W
a
L
a
C
a
C
ot-
O
N
N
3
c
a
H
W
W
W
V
E
E
O
U
O N
VI
N
UI
m w N
N
y
a
v
v
m
v
a m
C NO
d
W
O
O
O
O
H
O V C
ry W
C
vI
N
E
N 7
E
�
v E, m
m
R
m `o
¢ N
"
N m C
CO IO
d
m
V
m
V
C
f0
y❑
f0
IO T N
V
C
H
W0
c
m
E r
onmaoc
s
c
L
o
o
o
>
c>c
u a
`p
W`
N 'O w
o
`w c a
n¢
o
m
n o 0
L
a a
E cp N L
N-
N
N a
a
U
U
a d
Y`
O WI >
W
d W
W m
W
C
W OU
C
m w tlp om
C
m
N C
O
d
V
O
N
N C O
u
u
�O
v
m p H
C
O
N
2 O
C E O O
_
m
m
U
U
lVL
2
N LLL
N
c
LL U G
Q
c
Cm
C
m
z ..
g 0 0 rl N M O 00 V) I� M b N V h I� N H N 00 V 00 N V l0
Cd V V Vel M M V V M C M V M V C C M V M a a V
G N
Ql m m t0 l0 lD M O m O d' O N T n .--I N Ol N M v1 M M
CN O O vt vt Ol m utof N t� M N n N lD M b m N N
O m n n N N N tp O 1� N Ol W N O T a ti 0 I� N r at N
O M N I 'i N N V rl rl M ti M M
a
N
l0 O O M M V M V O a0 M O M tD rl Vf N N Cl UO Ol .-I \O Ol
�W m
`m
t
h
a
ju
a
¢ a
W c
m
a
c � c
W E
O a a O
n E E'a
w .0 .Oc OWp m N j N u w O¢ v w W G E O N
W o o
E
W x co n u u¢
m fO N N O O (O O! W C> u Y U 30
L "W o 5 V J
> a LL L O L W W O OO O O W aLL a>LD>
o¢
75A-116
� N
to m o rn n N vl v ill oo N .-� N N n In v
Lr ll N 00 N Ol N Ill l0 Ol m 00 N N N W Ill ID
Ill N n m Vl N O 0 n m m m O Ol Ol N Ol N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N l0 Ol m n Ill N O w O m m N N N M O l0
10 N O n M m 00 N N t0 n Ol m M N N l0 N O
06
D O Vl M O M R V N N m N O N C C N N
� ut
D o n In n v oo v m m� In m oo eo to v m
L O Vl m- l0 ID O Ill w N Ol 00 M O O N Vl N
y N O Vl N M al n co l0 Ol N N Ol n- N 00 N
O. 7 N N V N N N l'(1 N d' N N M
C =
O
E
a
ml
N
Z
O J
�a v m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m w 0 0 0 o O
In m m m v a v v� a a a v a vl vl vl vl H
75A-117
M
CI
N
a
m
F-
r
N
z
H
N
O
N
0
O
O
a
N
v
m
v
c
s
1O
=
m
c
w
3
v
m
vi
in
c
u
x
pl
p0
U!
d
10
N
t
f0
U
U
C
a
C
a s
o.
d
"O
a+ 09
c
o
N O
L
O
L
O
S
10
E
0
m
In O
>
C
C la
OD
00
N
o
d N
C
t0
6
j
C
U (p
c
v
O L
> O
C
O� J
u
v
N
O N
f0 O
d
C
N
N
av+
u
W U
W w
v
C
.y
N y y
m
m m
is m
m«
Q
Q
N
Z
O J
�a v m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m w 0 0 0 o O
In m m m v a v v� a a a v a vl vl vl vl H
75A-117
M
CI
N
a
m
F-
r
N
z
h O W a O N n vt 01 W Vl N N CT O O 00 O CT
� Vl 1� M S N M N tD Ql h Vl O N N N Vl tD O
� Ol O1 1� Ol lD Ol 00 00 M 00 I� N N f� n M W Ifl
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
� N O O I� O O O l0 m N I� Vf N 01 CT tD Q1 N
« V M Onl m V H H m ln0 ON M m N
«
'u c � is
n
H
m m i v m v v O a m m m � 0 0 0 0 m
m m m of m of of to m m In to w m m m m o0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n
6
J
l0 M O rl Ql h e -I V1 V Vl W rl ay e -I e -I h !Il V
W Ol N W N 01 N Vl 1p 01 M W Vl N H W Ill
Yl N I� b -
N .--I Ol Ol rI M M w O CIl Ol N al r1
N 1p Ol M M N N N M O l0
A N O m M M W N H l0 f� Ol m m N N 1p N O
D O Ill M O M V V N N Q1 N O N V a N N
F f-1 N e I W
VT VT
OVOl M W InD
N O a O N W N Obi W M O O 111 ILII N
M T
M N 1N � W w Ql N N CT 1� n N 00 N
a
Q N N C N N M N R N N M
c =
0
E
Q
Z �
T1 O n W O N N M C N lD 00 n N N N M V �
d Cl M Ol O O O O O O O N M 00 O O O O O
In m m m v v v v v v v v v v vl vl vl vl H
75A-118
v
0
N
Y
O
O
L
a
c
w
v
s
v
=
�
v
E
c
a in
m w
ra
u
m
a
v
v
c
a
c
n
c
`O
°
`0
a E
O
ro
v
c
E
C O
O
O
O
L
m
'^
U
N
O Y
v
c
i a`i
0
a
u
�
a
m
tm
vOi
d a
.v. c
o
j v
c
c n
v m
m�
O
O
l0 L
C C
C
(C
O
U
O
N
C
O
p E
c
u
O m
in 0
0
c
,�
C
Y
U d
O
NZ
O
w
ms
E
m
v
v v
v
v v
v
v
v
v
o
E —_
Q
Z �
T1 O n W O N N M C N lD 00 n N N N M V �
d Cl M Ol O O O O O O O N M 00 O O O O O
In m m m v v v v v v v v v v vl vl vl vl H
75A-118
75A-119
N
a
v
v
0
N
C
�
•a
Y Y
N N
N
A t0
�
O
Z L
g p
o o
o m
m
in m m
�
tD N
00
1p W W
p
O lD
�D
1p
E
ao "
rn
m
a
Vf
N
Vl
Z
5
y
d
a
-
N
m�
W
n ti
G
a
O
O
O
K
0
v� E
a
Cl
C
O
LL � N
m N 0
V
aO+
N
n
H
O
7 v
7
12
75A-119
75A-120
75A-121
C
0
0
OO m
Q a)
Y
m
N
a)
C y,. m
w
-
Y
N Y
O m
a)
m Y
m
N
N C
CU
a) m
w
'm0
C
E E
L
N
a)
O
d
H E N L
V7 w
C
C
V
.0
C O d
Y
O C
CD Y
m
O
-O
rm+
a) fXo
N
OL
m
a) Y w
C O
O.
w a
w
N
a)
d
0
0 0 0 m
O
uC
E
C
c m
C—
0 ra>
CL
u
N
Y
O
m aJ @>
a
a s
,v,
O
L
�•
HC
m m N L
N
F-
Ql
N
c E X N
0
N Q
C O N
U
•�
O
L
a)
m
N
Y
C N
N— N Y
N
L.
C
O m
i/ Ql
>
f0
E
N
O
ai
c
C
L
O
C O C O_
a
C N
Q
N �•3:3
a
yY
�_
.Ln
NI.OL
m
J a 0
-O
E
y
7
'c°
'YO—
E
aj E
0
C
U
O
Y
C
v
w-ZT
C
al
to
E
U
'O
O
C
m
Q1 O :a 7
L'
m
m
N to
w
a)
o
a
m N m
a)
3
c
o
tY0
E
C
Q
N ti C>
u
m
C
0
O
U C Y
Ou
O
N
C
to
l CmC N
O -� L
C
al II
N
Y
C
C
Y
O
-d
C a1 O a)
m
Q)
v 0
C
w
u
y
E
m
Q
Ll
N>-0
N
E
1
m ry
E
m
N
N
Y
C m m m>
O
v
^
E
O. m a w'
O
aa+
\
0
>
m
>'
N
in
Z
0i
o
v0i
m
-C
c
N
oY « `o
0
ba
a
E a vNi o
.o
o.
O
a s
gCL
0 araj
E
=
aJ
O
C
w
C O N
'O
w
N
Y
O
C�C
G
— a t .�.
m
bA
a l0
�n J O
m
-O
bA E O
E
C
O W
ma
c
v
L
a• vo
Y
o
:3
> c
Y
m
U
N
C
a
C
L
E O -O
Q
Ur
u
C
a)
0
LbD
O. a) C m
O
O N
O C N
E°
E
°
c
a)
E
o
O
O
EC
O
«a
•
j
bN
0C to
O
a
'C
Y
-C
3mvm
4m
'Y—
Lo
41 C
y sal. v
C
N
0
0
0
N
N
OU
E
N O
n 0
C
O
3
Cai
�' O
_
O
t d
'O
ba
m
0
E L
O a
O
m N
a)
u>
y
0
0
0
a
a
u
Y
O_
C c
x
F_
v" xa) E
o
E
a to
o v s
C
C
0
m
E
_O
a)
M
L v Y
a)
a)
m y
V 2
L
O
a
O
L
C
�O
O N
L
w
O
a) N
L
_ E
E U w
N
N
>
LO
Y
`)
N m N y
L
N
N
t' m
0 C
aj
y
al
mo
O
vg��
~�_"
E
o
zZQ
CL
Y
u
v
a O
o
Y .0
o
(a
J
CL
E v N
v
as
s
•
44) U>
=
Q
C V
Q3w'tm
ai
L
L
Y0
o
o
rJ
a)
mFa
m
N
YyE
O
0
'O
O 'OC
U
O
a)
YVL)
I
E
D.
OL
Q
°a m o m
E
u
c
¢
0
L
w
N
C
K
m -O O
Q
t
Q
x
i)
O
m
Q O c m
0
Iia
OI M M
6
F—
a)
O
m
LL
�
m bD m
u
J
1 C Q
.. .,
75A-121
75A-122
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING APPEAL NO. 2017-05 AS
CONDITIONED AND REVERSING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2016-
03 AND VARIANCE NO. 2017-06 FOR THE INCREASED
SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 NORTH CABRILLO PARK
DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. Robert Bisno with Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC (hereinafter referred
to as "Applicant") is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03
and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06, to allow the construction of a
seven -story mixed-use development with up to 260 units at 200 North
Cabrillo Park Drive.
B. On December 11, 2017, 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, and adopted a resolution denying Site Plan
Review No. 2016-03 and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06.
C. The Planning Commission's decision to deny Site Plan Review No. 2016-
03 and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06 was appealed to the City
Council by Robert Bisno on December 20, 2017, contending that the
project is appropriate at this location (Appeal No. 2017-05). Santa Ana
Municipal Code (SAMC) section 41-645 allows any interested party,
individual or group to file an appeal.
D. Appeal No. 2017-05 came before the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
for a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2018, to consider all testimony,
written and oral.
E. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana has considered the information
and determines that the following findings, which must be established in
order to grant this Site Plan Review pursuant to SAMC Section 41-595.5
and Metro East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone (MEMU) Section 8.1, have been
established for Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 to allow construction of the
proposed project.
EXHIBIT F
75A-123
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 up to 260 residential units
(including four live/work units) and approximately 6,600 sq.
ft. of commercial uses. The project design incorporates an
active streetscape that integrates the private development
with the public realm. The project meets several General
Plan goals and policies, including Land Use Element Goal 1
(promote a balance of land uses to address basic community
needs), Goal 2 (promote land uses which enhance the Citys
economic and fiscal viability), and Housing Element Policy
HE -2.3 (encourage the construction of rental housing for
Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a
commitment to very low, low, and moderate income
residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers) and
Policy HE -2.5 (require excellence in architectural design
through the use of materials and colors, building treatments,
landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally
sensitive ("green") building and design practices).
2. That the proposed development plan is consistent with the
development standards specified in Section 4 of the MEMU overlay
district.
The project complies with the majority of development
standards enumerated in the MEMU regulating plan, with the
exception of required parking and side yard setback. The
side yard setback is analyzed through the variance and the
project is conditioned to provide code required parking.
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 seven -level project
surrounded by several existing mid and high-rise buildings
and has been designed to complement these developments.
It supports the vision of the MEMU plan with the construction
of a high-density mixed-use development in close proximity
to similar residential uses and supportive commercial uses.
The project incorporates a variety of architectural materials,
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 2 of 10
75A-124
massing and ground floor uses that are compatible with the
MEMU plan.
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.
No significant 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 Cabrillo Park
Drive with the provision of publicly accessible open space,
small-scale commercial uses, and a variety of seating and
recreational amenities.
F. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following
findings, which must be established in order to grant Variance No. 2017-
06 for an increased side yard setback has been established as required by
SAMC Section 41-638:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found
to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose' of the provisions of this
Chapter.
The proposed project is located in an area surrounded by
office buildings, parking structures, and a freeway, which
restrict the site from compliance with the side yard setback
to the south property line. The site necessitates adequate
emergency access to the rear of the property to serve the
proposed development. In order to properly address life
safety issues, the building must be reduced in size to
accommodate a larger setback for a fire lane and adequate
ladder angles.
2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of one (1) or more substantial property rights.
The granting of the setback variance will preserve the
property owner's ability to develop a vacant lot with uses
consistent with the MEMU overlay plan and to provide
adequate emergency access to serve the residences. The
development will revitalize the currently undeveloped parcel
and activate the area with additional housing and
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 3 of 10
75A-125
commercial uses to support the active -urban subzone of the
MEMU overlay plan. Future housing and active retail uses
will benefit the neighborhood and promote the ability to live,
work, shop, and play all within a short walk of each other.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The granting of the setback variance will not be detrimental
to the public or surrounding properties. The 30 -foot setback
in lieu of a maximum 10 -foot setback is necessary to
accommodate emergency access and will serve a dual
design purpose as open space for the residents. The
variance will allow for the development of an undeveloped
site consistent with the MEMU overlay plan.
4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the city.
The project will not adversely affect the General Plan, but
rather support its goals. The proposed project is consistent
with Land Use Element Goal 1 (promote a balance of land
uses to address basic community needs) and Goal 2
(promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and
fiscal viability) by providing a high-intensity mixed-use
residential and commercial development consistent with the
vision of the area and surrounding land use designations.
The variance allows the development of the project in a mid
to high-rise built environment and provides housing in close
proximity to support nearby commercial uses.
Section 2. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the recommendation is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15332
(Class 32 "In -Fill Development Projects").
The Class 32 exemption applies to projects characterized as infill development
meeting the following conditions: 1. The project is consistent with the applicable general
plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable
zoning designation and regulation; 2. The proposed development occurs within city
limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban
uses; 3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened
species; 4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and 5. The site can be adequately served by
all required utilities and public services.
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the MEMU regulating
plan. The project meets several General Plan goals and policies, including Land Use
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 4 of 10
75A-126
Element Goal 1 (promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs)
and Goal 2 (promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability),
and Housing Element Policy HE -2.3 (encourage the construction of rental housing for
Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and
moderate income residents and moderate income Santa Ana workers) and Policy HE -
2.5 (require excellence in architectural design through the use of materials and colors,
building treatments, landscaping, open space, parking, and environmentally sensitive
("green") building and design practices).
The project site and type of development proposed are already addressed in the
previously approved environmental impact report (EIR) for the MEMU overlay district
(EIR No. 2006-01). However, a Class 32 exemption is required for the project because
the original EIR did not require a greenhouse gas study. The Applicant submitted a
greenhouse gas study that indicates the project will not negatively impact greenhouse
gas reduction goals. In addition, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to
identify any impacts from developing a residential community adjacent to a freeway.
The HRA recommends that the project incorporate certain window design features on
freeway -facing elevations for all units adjacent to the 1-5 freeway, and that the project
install air filtration systems throughout.
Section 3. 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.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public
hearing, hereby approves Appeal No. 2017-05, and reverses the Planning Commission's
denial of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 and Variance No. 2017-06 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 December 11, 2017, and
exhibits attached thereto; the Request for Council Action dated April 3, 2018, and exhibits
attached thereto; and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated
herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 3'' day of April 2018 by the following vote:
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 5 of 10
75A-127
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By: 22 �
Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTENTIONS: Councilmembers:
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2018-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on April 3, 2018.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75A-128
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT A
Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 and Variance No. 2017-06
Site Plan Review No. 2016-03 and Variance No. 2017-06 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
Califomia 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 belowrip or to exercising
the rights conferred by this site plan review and variances.
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 and variances.
A. Planning Division
1. All proposed site improvements must conform to the Site Plan Review approval
of DP No. 2016-38.
2. The project plans shall be revised to provide the code required parking of 2.0
spaces per unit (520 spaces).
3. 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.
4. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures as required by the Metro
East Mixed -Use Overlay Zone.
5. A residential property manager shall be on site at all times that the project is
occupied.
6. All new utilities and mechanical equipment such as backflow devices, Edison
transformers, and double check detector assembly devices shall not be located
within front yard setbacks and must be screened from view from public and
courtyard areas.
7. All parking for the project, including visitor parking spaces, shall be made
available free of charge.
8. The interior of the parking structure shall be painted white.
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 7 of 10
75A-129
9. 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.
10.After project occupancy, landscaping and hardscape materials must be
maintained as shown on the approved landscape plans.
11.A Resident Storage Plan shall be provided for the project prior to occupancy.
Storage shall be available at no cost to the residents.
12. Smart wiring, including cable television and high-speed cable for computers,
shall be provided for each unit and within the project's common areas.
13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed:
a) 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.
b) Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and
elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and
fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and be
approved by the Planning Division.
14. Prior to occupancy of any units, the following shall be completed:
a) A Rental Housing Operational Plan must be submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval. At a minimum, the plan shall identify the
location of employee and visitor parking, the location of the rental office,
hours of operation for the rental office, and signage affiliated with the Rental
Housing Operational Plan. In addition, the Rental Housing Operational Plan
must clearly note that the parking and project amenities must be provided
free of charge to the residents.
b) A revised Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval. The plan shall include additional parking
spaces with accompanying exhibits and provisions for the distribution and
management of parking for residents, employees and guests.
15.As a result of the health risk assessment (HRA) and to reduce any adverse
health effects associated with diesel -truck emissions associated with the
project's proximity to the 1-5 Freeway, Applicant must install non-operable
windows on all windows facing the 1-5 Freeway and install air filtration systems
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 8 of 10
75A-130
with filters meeting or exceeding the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration,
and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 52.5 Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV) of 14.
16. A Public Art Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for staff review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The public art shall be
installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
B. Police Department
1. The Applicant will be required to submit a Security Plan for the proposed project
to the Police Department. The plan will be required to outline hours of operation
for the parking structure (secured/open), a duress alarm system for the parking
structure and an access control system for the perimeter of the building.
2. Parking structure and buildings: Each door within the structure and building
leading into a stairwell, lobby, or storage area must be outfitted with a 100
square inch fire rated window. Convex mirrors minimum of 12 inch in diameter
must be provided at each stairwell landing, in the storage rooms and at each
comer along a walkway. The last flight of each stair must be fully enclosed at its
base.
3. Elevators are to be equipped with minimum 12 -inch shatterproof convex mirrors
or are to have mirrored backing.
4. Parking structure first floor exits must be designed to allow emergency egress
with no exterior hardware.
5. Building/unit addressing shall comply with emergency service standards of the
City of Santa Ana.
6. Lobby doors must be equipped with a Police Department approved access
control system.
7. Provide a minimum 100 square inch window in the trash room and storage
room doors.
8. Parking Structure elevators must be equipped with an approved access control
system.
C. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
1. Prior to OCFA clearance of issuance of a building permit, the Applicant or
responsible party shall submit plans and obtain approval of the following:
a) Fire master plan (service code PR145)
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 9 of 10
75A-131
b) Architectural (service codes PR200-PR285)
c) Architectural (service codes (PR212-PR220, abbreviated review)
d) Tanks storing hazardous materials (service codes PR300-PR305)
e) Hazardous materials compliance and chemical classification (service codes
PR315-PR328)
f) Battery (service code PR375), for any system containing an aggregate
quantity of electrolyte in excess of 50 gallons
g) Underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service
code PR470-PR475)
h) Fire sprinkler system (service code PR400-PR465)
2. Prior to concealing interior construction, the Applicant shall obtain approval of a
fire alarm system (service code PR500-PR520).
3. Before commencement of construction, the Applicant or responsible party shall
attend a pre -construction meeting with an OCFA inspector. Call OCFA
Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150 at least five days in advance to
schedule and pay for the pre -construction meeting.
4. After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the Applicant
shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building
materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150 with the
Service Request number of the approved fire master plan at least five days in
advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection.
5. The Applicant or responsible party shall provide the OCFA inspector evidence
of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system performance
criteria prior to occupancy. Refer to OCFA Guideline E-03 or the local
jurisdiction's emergency responder radio ordinance, as applicable, for
requirements.
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 10 of 10
75A-132
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA DENYING APPEAL NO. 2017-05 AND
APPROVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
VARIANCE NO. 2017-05 FOR A REDUCTION IN PARKING
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 200 NORTH CABRILLO PARK DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. Robert Bisno with Cabrillo Community Partners, LLC (hereinafter referred
to as "Applicant") is requesting approval of Site Plan Review No. 2016-03
and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06, to allow the construction of a
seven -story mixed-use development with up to 260 units at 200 North
Cabrillo Park Drive.
B. On December 11, 2017, 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, and adopted a resolution denying Site Plan
Review No. 2016-03 and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06.
C. The Planning Commission's decision to deny Site Plan Review No. 2016-
03 and Variance Nos. 2017-05 and 2017-06 was appealed to the City
Council by Robert Bisno on December 20, 2017, contending that the
project is appropriate at this location (Appeal No. 2017-05). Santa Ana
Municipal Code (SAMC) section 41-645 allows any interested party,
individual or group to file an appeal.
D. Appeal No. 2017-05 came before the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
for a duly noticed public hearing on April 3, 2018, to consider all testimony,
written and oral.
E. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana determines that all of the
findings required for granting Variance No. 2017-05 pursuant to SAMC
Section 41-638 could not be made. Instead, the City Council determines
that the following finding has been established for Variance No. 2017-05
for a reduction in parking:
1. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The site does not meet
the minimum parking requirements. Based upon public hearing
EXHIBIT G
75A-133
testimony and the proposed variance for a reduction in parking, the
project may potentially negatively impact traffic flow and impact
neighboring properties resulting in a detriment to the public welfare.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana, after conducting the public
hearing, hereby denies Appeal No. 2017-05, and approves the Planning Commission's
denial of Variance No. 2017-05 for reduced parking. 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 December 11, 2017, and exhibits attached
thereto; the Request for Council Action dated April 3, 2018, and exhibits attached thereto;
and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this
reference.
ADOPTED this 31d day of April 2018 by the following vote:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:
Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTENTIONS: Councilmembers:
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
75A-134
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Resolution No. 2018-xx to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on April 3, 2018.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75A-135
Resolution No. 2018 -XX
Page 3 of 3
75A-136
Illip- m 1111,, �11 liliq
75A-138
Orozco, Norma
From: Arabe, Jill
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:13 PM
To: Orozco, Norma; Mitre -Ramirez, Norma; Huizar, Maria; Rojano, Michael
Cc: Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince
Subject: FW: The Madison
Please include public comment below for item 75A— Public Hearing for the Madison project (200 N Cabrillo Park Dr)
scheduled for April 31d City Council hearing.
Thank you,
Jill Ann Arabe, AICP
Senior Planner/Urban Designer
City of Santa Ana
is rabe(a2santa-an a. ora
(714)667-2707
From: Paone, Tim
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 3:37 PM
To: Arabe, Jill
Cc: Robert Bisno
Subject: The Ma ison
Jill, following up on our email correspondence of November 27, 2017, and our comments at the December 11 Planning
Commission hearing, I would like to share with you that the concerns of the owner of the Xerox office building at 1851
East First Street (the "Adjacent Owner") with respect to the application of The Madison have not yet been resolved.
After we have had an opportunity to review the Staff Report for the upcoming City Council hearing, we will be
submitting (probably late Monday or early Tuesday) more detailed comments, but for now I just wanted to alert you to
the fact that we will be asking for a continuance of the City Council hearing to allow Mr. Bisno the additional time
needed to work with the owners of the State Fund building to address our most significant concern, which is the
potential conflict in the morning peak time between residents leaving The Madison for work or school and tenants
arriving at the Xerox building for work. Mr. Bisno has been cooperative in pursuing this resolution, but the management
firm for the State Fund building has not been available for the past few weeks to follow up on our discussions. We need
time to resolve this concern.
I would like to emphasize that while the owner of the Xerox building objects to aspects of the project, it does not object
to the proposed use. In addition to the morning peak hour internal circulation impacts noted above, our concerns relate
to the absence of a designated move -in / move -out loading area (a very significant concern), potential peak hour traffic
queuing, the requested parking variance, and the location of the loading zone. All of these concerns are manageable and
we are open to compromise, but we feel very strongly that the morning peak hour traffic conflict must be resolved.
Please be aware that many of our tenants share these concerns. As noted above, after we review the Staff Report we
will provide more detailed comments on these points. Thanks.
Tim Paone
75A-139
COX CAS I.r �k
Cox, Castle & Nicholson L.LP
3121. Micheison Drive Suite 200 1 Irvine, CA 97.61,1
direct: 949.2.60.4655 main: 949.260.4600
tpaone@coxcastle.com I vcard I bio I website
10i -S',; Selected as 2018 "Law Firm of the Year" in Land Use and Zoning Law
','1ifVE by U.S. News & World Report- Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms"
For more information, visit our blog Lay of the Land
This t.ornrnunlcation Is Intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain Information that Is I vileged or confidential. If you are riot the addressee, or
someone responsible for delivering this dorurnont to the addressee, you may not read, copy or distribute It. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of a
cornmunlcation Is strictly prohibited. If you have received 0% non'ununication In error, please call us promptly and securely dispose of it, I'hari<you
.
75A? 140