Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75A - PH THE MADISONREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2018 CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: TITLE: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended STATUS UPDATE REPORT ON ❑ As Amended THE MADISON AT 200 NORTH CABRILLO E] Ordinance on 151 Reading PARK DRIVE — CABRILLO COMMUNITY E] Ordinance on Reading [IRe Implementing Resolution PARTNERS, LLC, APPLICANT ❑ Set Public Hearing For {STRATEGIC PLAN N0 , 21 CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER DISCUSSION At the April 3, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing on this project for two weeks. The purpose of the continuation was to provide additional time for the applicant to address the adjacent property's concerns with traffic circulation and access. The City Council was particularly interested in exploring a secondary ingress/egress on the north property line. Since the hearing, the applicant has made attempts to contact the adjacent property owner to resolve vehicular access concerns. However, the adjacent property owner to the north of the subject site has not responded to the applicant's communications. In order to have access to the north site, as requested by concerned parties, an easement would have to be granted by ownership to the north. Thus far no changes to the project plans have been made. If significant changes are proposed on the plans, please be advised that additional staff time may be necessary to review such modifications. 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 item. Candida Neal Acting Executive Director Planning and Building Agency 75A-1 75A-2 MEMO • • 1 G Raul Godinez II, To: City Manager Candida Neal, Acting Planning & Building Agency Executive From: Director Prepared Vince Fregoso, Acting Planning Manager by: Jill Arabe, Senior Plainer Date: April 12, 2018 Subject: 200 NORTH CABRILLO PARK DRIVE (THE MADISON) UPDATE At the April 3, 2018, meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing on this project for two weeks. The purpose of the continuation was to provide additional time for the applicant and to address the adjacent property's concerns with traffic circulation and access. The City Council was particularly interested in exploring a secondary ingress/egress on the north property line. Since the hearing, the applicant has made attempts to contact adjacent ownership to resolve vehicular access concerns. However, the adjacent property owner to the north of the subject site has not responded to the applicant's communications. In order to have access to the north site, as requested by concerned parties, an easement would have to be granted by ownership to the north. As of today's date, no changes to the project plans have been made. If significant changes are proposed on the plans, please be advised that additional staff time may be necessary to review such modifications. JA:rb cc: Mayor & City Council City Attorney City Clerk 75A-3 75A-4 REQUEST 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) ,s •t MANAGER 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1B1 Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO APR 17 2018 FILE NUMBER 1. 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-5 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 party, 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-6 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:RFCA72018103-20-181PBA SPR18-03VA17-05 200 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-7 75A-8 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 Acting Pla ing . nager Acting Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTIONS PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ❑ 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-9 SPR No. 2016-03, VA No. 2017-05, VA No. 2017-06 December 11, 2017 Page 2 Item Informatiom Surrounding Land Uses North Office South Office East Mixed -Use west Santa Ana (I-5) Freewa Property Size 2.79 acres 752-977 Existinq Site Develo men) None; the site is current) vacant Use Permissions Mixed-use projects permitted by the MEMU OZ -1 designation Zoning Codes Affected Off -Street Parking 04-1, Section 4.8 SAMC Section 41-638.1 SAMC Section 41-632 Building Setback OZ -1, Section 4.7 Prolect 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 ]an -e --- 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: Project Summary 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-10 Residential Units - 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 LiveMork 4 1.5 1 1,54D-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 53 12 0.2 spaces per unit Total Onsite Spaces 445 100 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-10 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 et 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. Prosect 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. Project 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-11 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 Re uired by MEMO -Active Urban 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 Frontages Forecourt Forecourt Publicly Accessible Open Space 15% of Total Lot Area =18,230 sq. ft. 20,733 sq. ft. Private/Common Open 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 required Rear Yard 0-10 ft. 1511t. Parking Mixed-use with less than 10% of gross floor area devoted to a commercial activity: 2.0 spaces per residential or live/work unit inclusive of guest parking and any nonresidential uses = 520 spaces 1.71 spaces per unit = 445 spaces — variance required 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 Pian. 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 Required by MEMU Section 4.8 Provided Mixed-use Minimum of 2.0 Parking Spaces developments with spaces per residential Required D 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-12 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-13 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 applicantlowner 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, Strate tc Plan Ali nment; and Public Notification & Community Outreach = CEQA. . ,., _ - CEQA Type Class 32 Categorical Exemption/Sec. 15332 — In -Fill Development Projects Reason(s) 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-14 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 & COMmunitv 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 selling 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 ro'ect. Goal(s) and Policy(s) Approval of this item supports the Citys efforts to meet Goal No. 3 (Economic Development) Objective No. 2 of creating new opportunities for businessljob growth and encoura a private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies. Public Notification':& Communit Outreach' Required MeasuresA puolic notice was posted on the project site on November 30, 2017. Notification by mail was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the ro'ect site on November 30, 2017. News WP -e. postin was ublished 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. JA:sb S-t%miirig CmmisslWI2017112-11-171SPR16-03VA17-05 260 N Cabrillo Exhibits: 1. Resolution 2. Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View 3. Site Photo 75A-15 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-16 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-17 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 Plan 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-18 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-19 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-20 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 acnes 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-21 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 110 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-22 Resolution No. 2017-xx 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-23 Resolution 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 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 below prior 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-24 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. 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 walUfencing 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 -nor Page 9 of 11 75A-25 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 (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. Resolution No. 2017-xx Page 10 of 11 75A-26 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-27 This page left blank intentionally. 75A-28 IF Ana Boundary or 1` zzs 2 ne Deuriptipn iE �C a ua ]S -? ((•+ter Sa It S CcmmecM J:•v [r C ( rtal.—u•ecr-. C�•cr C C rtal f� ■G. aft •tnl ] ■ G tCwty S oc s VAR No. 17-06 (The Madison) ' ar -- ',, - Vicinity Zoning and Aerial View 75A-29 0 Jn17 Diaital Man Prnrft - M nan .c [pc .r ,d. IN Y E0 a 5 la.ol-n 3AI80 Wd 07VNOVJ .6 I e' � � t�%:''6 i5y�iv9l i• — e,I• '''�] X I all L I 1, 1. 1C I x4 rv' 9 3�I AI WA mm rvlm A 1F - ll: 4;11 i W oY c21 I: it 11<'S i/ 11. `I -,'® I_=F -Lt = U r � n L Z5 A � uu en p - § i i• I E 1 _ 1 p4 SI -n S -x rr,m 3h9�MTTTTT'< Y M9 @ pSb o 0 x�a;aa OEM yy 9�3 �2w7 2'T Y i �e�< aSgpVID 2 t R No. 2017-05, VAR 1. o 201L7 -061y e m o 6 q € U i 1 —1 THE MADISON W •§ J a-' s g 8 s s ti ria a LTi ��Y- �YYY7•RD �'1. CABRILLO PARK ' .... aux EXHIBIT -- e a` a 'a � � e 6 e � ��` za_ 29�•�T z r ogB�g SITE PLAN � og01 .raylgU 3AI80 YYVd 0111990 Al -T, <El r . 1 4 z 2 Ell ZN , zs In, -Ilr-1 !a ff 0 :If I L fyi I F m8 ----------- - RM-9 ... ... ..... ... . R. M ME p Sam Sig 4 KIM, 1 u 9 O a - �� a:.aru 3nroa�avaonroad� j -+s ,� 1•n $■ � n #dfi 1 �'2 ru S A A 6 �.�...�,• �[�" I— � ra �i A I 'ti s ry 0 i p . Loj i c l NON, fat Yi z o w MS Fz 35 IC_I I_ 'll at'ry. I_ it 1 El 71-1 J:JF La as O mcg rr mmu a°� E I1'I, s T__I f4 +� P � aHIM E NN s iz 3v' -psi 1 d r S g A ' 6'Y PH H15 C o at g `e �z g- 6 m aSfi3 ao_Os a_aqi o •^ 6 6 L'-' U i3f?3�,�,'gg . 3 Y- s is a u s cYi § <'Yi :FY ��YYYYyy � < r a a S M s a •,• ... �a {'Q�y�s x$lo 6$0 Ic171 9 @5 FFR RE 11 13g J'O 1.1E 3/r) IT. z 2 0 r ifUI iN F M, a ILI If mo F I ma o ...... 1 00 0 ts! na 3 S. - SAR ageqs azll 00 HIM, Gn v I - ?M 4 ia&91114 HU-M 7r,A-'Zr, a a �'_, 1...p fir• R' � ��,��-11 • 1 q �' 1 IN G ,..f�! 1 L=i •1 '�L• ` . .i�re: � �1r 'b��: •� �• � Y6u �ii~ Y Q a e _ ..y 4 4 •IE7 J = RI�; it �.�}� I 1��7 : .oaf�11�■ t :'9 e �I':: d�ji iFi�iY� ii R ur AI •1111 1 �� ai•� &. p•x �1 V v�Ll 11S • a �� - •rel ni,i �� n' •11.3 - �� c � 1. r ��_ '�6.�1�'�' ,•L.i � i�iS➢i �. a -`1 ICGI �1�� ��nt�� � �- 1 _>iiiiiiiiii 1 lir` IY�.• I 5B' 6 �� , �... `.. � �3-- •R^ • � P s �. P.r� � Y��.... � •�V� . �'� ,1 I��� i.. ~� $�� 1 � ���r i � 1 I�d �. _ � �- �oa�, i�� � i � � � � �.��� ��-1 ..,�I. !�9,�� u. 4 � l n Wi �� • � �.� - .n. �� ,��.. .• _ i'in i FIs d B p � . G„� a� a _ +:i �111�II'1'1 '-. Ly_�ic�: ■ VrC TV 4 C r • a L�1,:� n�i. Ial J �i i 3ILL � I. ■ i ■Im q`s,Ire � ..G Q a 1 I � ■ VrC TV a I , � �� 4 ewreoJnme @' _ .0_21 �1�6/ 9'A! ,1•H J:�J9 �___ IJ 1 Y' I � m0i I � I R I Ilk JI•R IsbF7 Gs I � 11 i. 9 I \ Hl! I O rn t Z.2 O ! W_ m ITY 1 = 9 It, . I,� >,_� I � dd IL MC — o 0 m I 33ia a = o00 I � I I — I mE 146 Fs t _ J _ J - d 31�J52 E 0 R � J GGG l7 _ S o rrrrrrrrrr �i a ab Ep €� ip Fs Ea Fs is 'sz S 0 Jg w u U rrrrrrrr b b- - 4 -b IE 00 �`rtay b b gb �e84_S O 33 d -na �— 177llI N ,rfr, F ww C x y� a z o p N µ 1 � LLY = W U IA, mt7k j E71 _ 1) 0 y KEr � L m a �a $I111 NO.FP16-03, $"3 )J. 2PJ7-05, VAR No. 2017.06 u E M_Ab(SON I oodi 2PARKDRIVE 0 9iso g s¢ 2 g p saa s s ;g JR4 g g b e $rya a g �CF[I�i73 9 @ Y3 ' 9Ud IONS b .6Y w r. ; rrrr.• rrr � o ° r rrrrrrr rrrr pp b lb b b? o —�-r } o& ttb LT EfIfEl ]a Dwi S_.m cr..f�mvt UI Rbd iNiFJ wv� jl3 jt D] t44 t�4 �r � I _ ® a F r�7rtatlez��tl7fl IL m 61 P _ __ i a c i 2v aeC3g Y N ° Cg gsg $ � 3� 8 9 vi--! i� - ! �' • �- 6! I.. �' � �F- Ste- ^. Z 93 i�C' O6•' ,� a r R x 2i f w7 GSA Ss. •;' CIS t gg O P 1 c �1 'xL - ti r _���� .SPR No. 2016` VAR -No 71T 5,YVAR N 077.06 b THEM D 014 0 qtr ., 200 N. CABRILLO-;PA K DRIVE N,i K ," EXH16FT � _ BUILDING PEF;S S .'.eft;--��-'- -` - - - 9 vi--! i� xl S J �t 'rt 1 S l _ �- r •f.� r ��r rimer err-- ' N O a� �'�-gyp •• / �"� � ��f' f >t^/�i`Ji��!/!/ fl� t1 `fir �t \• .. i m a z u0i ` QUS 2I 20` HN5 `j 0 ILI 1 T 6 N i ADM( G I WINa N 09 w{z vi m W- v L'v o. Rk 1N mE 4 MIL, 71 a� 06 U' � �Itr S 4 +Cr � x t :F w F Sf Y i{ :• L tj A� LL 1 Q u3e mot --MR PAN=Q nQ DQ �8 Ga8 ? C F ?tea c�Q caa`©o ®r l flIl �Il DB z o ;r' ®a �l =a z oa - mu Gl9 ®® Ea® ®G %IM'• r m 2!9 v 8 am`d ®@ AB + a N J sFY 1j ...J C.J f J I� Lf . 3-,.• � c � aj t J Uld X �� J -O .7 ff - 0 e➢ mE _97 E m a f E <d � O � rG s t, ' e 191 Z Q J a LAI OL Q N 0 Z!2 Q o —10 W 3 S 5#s s Z s u�����;_'���Y Y U '. 3AIBQ MdVE 0111UOTO 171 PPVA''BRILLO PARK DRIVE w„,,�@E.XHIBIT 8 75AF"APE PLANS 2 a 0 6 U W p � 3 U � 0 O m m V� N « � W V q11\` 1i,64 m(7S .�1 1 V J E J a`e co sa mo Zy aE dY'{ Cy V f �15 d C V 1�`LI Ipz� —Aft ,2077.06 °�; , z�i v a a a O F tj fj » 2 w O 4AINn UhVd nllIMG49 75A-49 =B October 3, 2017 Engineers&Planners Tragic Transportation Parking Mr. Robert Bisno unscot4 taw & 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 94983JI3173 ` wurrv.lIgenlgengineers.cam 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.❑nscmt, PE Rw+ mi Jack h1 Greenspan, PE load a) Calculates the proposed Project parking requirements based on the application of William A Law. PE lanl 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. Keating, PE against the proposed supply; David S. Shander, PE SPR No. 2016-03, VAR No. 2017-05, VAR No. 2017-06 John A. Boorman, PE THE MADISON Clare U Look -Jaeger. PE Richard E. Barreno, PE 200 N. CABRILLO PARK DRIVE Keil D. Maherry, PE EXHIBIT 9 PARKIIII f ffi igdNALYSIS A taAYe C.m,., r.-e.eM 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 (4d' Edition) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Shared Parking (2nd 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, 85d' Percentile and 95' 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 1, 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 sun•ounding 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 I 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 2nd Floor, respectively. V 3700 21(,3755 -'Che NIRtfieon. Saute kna,Parkmg Study Retort 3755'1'he Madison Parking Study 10-3-17.doc '75A-51 Mr. Robert Bisno October 3, 2017 Page 3 PARKING 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:`37000 I637?? -'The Nladisou, Santa Ana Parking Sludy,Hcporl' 3753 She Madison Parking Study 10-3-17.doc 75A-52 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 (40' 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 85th 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`2J(,37» -I he Madison, Sau1a �naTarking Study'Rehoi I, M The N Iar ivun Parkins Study 10-3-1 Zdnc 15A-53 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 Village: 2555 Main Street. Irvine (1.42 spaces per DO 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 DO 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 370012163755 -'I he \-Iadison, Santa Ana' Parking Study Rennrt'3755 the Madison Parking Study 10.3-17.doc 75A-54 Mr. Robert Bisno October 3, 2017 Page 6 Trio Apartments: 44 N. Madison Avenue. Pasadena (1.22 spaces per DIS 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 EI 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/Holly 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 DO 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 Nuel: 27960 Cabot Road, Laguna Ninuel (1.28 spaces per DO 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/Transit-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: 3700'31e37i5-'I he Madison, Santa Ana Parking $mdy'RQ JI6$� hu ajatm Pnikinc Rudy 10.3-I7.doc 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, 85th percentile, and 95' 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 95th percentile demand would be 419 spaces. Comparing the 95th 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/overnight 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 37002to37ii -The Madison; Sana Ana Parking Smdy`Reron3755 The NI3dipnt Paikine Study 10-3-17.doc 75A-56 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 V3700 2163755 -1 he %Tadiwn, Smrta Ana Parking Smdy,Re)o 1'33755 The Madnni Parking Study 10-1-1 Zdoc 75A-57 Mr. Robert Bisno October 3, 2017 Page 9 assigned to specific units of the studio units and/or 1 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 95th 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 95' 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. N: DOM 6375 - 1 he Madism, Sonia AmTaikino Sludy;Repo&3755 The \ladison Parking Study 10-3-17.doc 75A-58 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^370(Y,21(,37SS-The 1Iadi5on, Santa Ana, Parking Study4(c,1 5,'I_z y�j.i on I'm king Study 10-3-17.doc 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— 1" Access 329 spaces (includes 9 H/C) ❑ Resident Parking— 2nd Access/Tandem 63 spaces ❑ Guest Parking (includes 1 H/C spaces) 53 spaces Total Parking Supply: 445 spaces I Sowce: MVE+Partam, 7/28/2017. N."7100 2 1637i: _ f h, S,,tn Ain\Vp,L oc Spud. NaF n 1-55 1 k Xf.li- i VAinc, Sn.d, W-1-1 " d - 75A -60 TABLE 2 COMPARABLE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING RATIO SUMMARY THF MADISON. SAMA ANA Notes: [a] Source: ParkingDemmtdAnalysirfor the Proposed Fih Avemte/Mortingimt Drive Mixed -Use Project City of Monrovia,California, prepared by LLG,Oci2012 [b] Source: Parking SnrdyforAML7OrangeApar(men(Project, prepared by IBI Group, Nov. 2012 [c] Source: Parking Reform Made Easy, Richard W. Willson, 2013 [d] Source: Counts collected by LLG on December 2016. 75A-61 Tenant &Guest Tenant &Guest Peak Parking Saturday Ratio- Daytime Peak Parking Spaces per DU Parking Ratio Comparable Site City Address Develo ment Summary Facility Parking Su Iv Retail Survey Period Peak Hour Peak Hour 250 Unit Luxury Apartments 438 Spaces 1.75 1 Anton Residential Costa 580 Anton • 802 Bedroom Units Structure • Residents -330 sp. — —Peak How N/A ( ) _ Mid -Rise Building Mesa Boulevard , 170 Studio/l Bedroom Units • Guests - I08 s . 481 Unit Apartments 1,020 Spaces 2 Main Street Irvine 2555 Main • 265 1 Bedroom Units Structure •Residents - 647 sp . — Wednesday &Thursday 1.42 Village [a] Street • 200 2 Bedroom Units • Public/Guests - 173 sp. I OPM-12AM (Q 12:00 AM) • 16 3 Bedroom Units 279 Unit Apartments 3 279 Unit Complex Irvine _ • 2 Studio Units Gated 600 Spaces 600(Peak _ Tuesday 136 — •1621Bedroom Units Structure How N/A) • 115 2 Bedroom Units Unit Complex 403 Unit Apartments Gated Tuesday 1.29 4 [®b] Irvine — • 326 1 Bedroom Units structure 643 Spaces __ 6PM-IAM Hou (Peak Hour N/A) _ • 772 Bedroom Units Gated 460 Unit Complex 460 Unit Apartments Structure, Tuesday IA 5 IN Orange — • 2561 Bedroom Units Gated 784 Spaces -- 6PM-IAM (Peak Hour N/A) _ • 204 2 Bedroom Units Surface Lot 183 Unit Apartments Gated 1.1 6 183 Unit Complex Fullerton — • 129 1 Bedroom Units Residential 223 Residential Spaces Yes — (Peak Hour N/A) _ [b] • 542 Bedroom Units Structure 250 Unit Complex 250 Unit Apartments Gated 094 7 Santa Ana — • 108 1 Bedroom Units Residential 453 Residential Spaces Yes — (peak How N/A) _ [b] • 145 2-3 Bedroom Units Structure Paragon at Old 700S. 163 Unit Apartments Surface Lot 404 Spaces Wednesday & Thursday Y 1.48 8 Town [a] Monrovia Myrtle • 82 1 Bedroom Units On -Street •Residents -329 sp. — 6PM-12AM (Q 11:00 PM) _ Avenue • 913 Bedroom Units Parking • Public/Guests - 75 sp. 44N 304 Unit Apartments Surface Lot 480 Spaces 9 Trio Apartments Pasadena . Madison • 46 Studio Units On -Street • Residents -450 sp. — Wednesday & Thursday 1.22 — [z] • 141 1 Bedroom Units lOPM-12AM (Q12:00 AM) Avenue parking • Public/Guests-30 sp. • 117 2 Bedroom Units 512 Spaces Wednesday & Thursday 0.97 l0 Adagio on the Mission 26600so 256 Unit Apartments Garage, • Residents sp. — 7PM-2AM I.45 (Q :00 & Green [d] Viejo Parkway Surface Lot e is - ,publidGuests-88 sp. Saturday:l2PM-3PM, (Q 12:00 AM) 000 M) 3:00 PM) 7PM-2AM Wednesday & Thursday Skye at Laguna Laguna 28100 142 Unit Apartments 294 Spaces • Residents 240 7PM-2AM 1.49 1.07 11 Niguel [d] Niguel Cabot • 97 1 Bedroom Units Garage - sp. — Saturday: 12PM-3PM, (Q 11:00 PM) (Q 12:00 PM) Road • 45 2 Bedroom Units • Public/Guests - 54 sp. 7PM-2AM 284 Unit Apartments Wednesday & Thursday Apex Laguna Laguna 27960 • 32 Studio Units 539 Spaces 7PM-2AM L28 1.13 12 Niguel [d] Niguel Cabal • 16I 1 Bedroom Units Garage • Residents -461 sp. -- Saturday: 12PM-3PM, (Q 2:00 AM) (Q 3:00 PM) Road , 912 Bedroom Units •Public/Guests - 78 sp. 7pM-2AM Average: _ 135_ _ 85th Percentile: 1.4 8 95th Perentile: 1.61 Additional Parking Ratio References: ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition Nigh -Rise Apartment Average: 137 85th Percentile: 152 ULI Shared Parking: Residential (Rental) Units 1.65 Field Studies in Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga Tel 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 DUs for the Madison) Average Demand (135 x 280 DUs): 378__ _ 85th Percentile Demand (1.48 x DUs): _ 414 95th Percentile Demand (1.61 z DUs): 451 Notes: [a] Source: ParkingDemmtdAnalysirfor the Proposed Fih Avemte/Mortingimt Drive Mixed -Use Project City of Monrovia,California, prepared by LLG,Oci2012 [b] Source: Parking SnrdyforAML7OrangeApar(men(Project, prepared by IBI Group, Nov. 2012 [c] Source: Parking Reform Made Easy, Richard W. Willson, 2013 [d] Source: Counts collected by LLG on December 2016. 75A-61 :J L 0 4' _'II PHkyfd9 i UM eE N I ._NCS � r_ SL51= lli walF _ Nlinn4M F-. ly. �..� ISDN=�_ I w L_ r..—'Acnaao &1 SA tG.ry.SI N S6'SC� NG aM Ave u 1L ��-.._—I— --.NA'III . '�' — �-' Yortia Sty—r--I HtlglnS Dr.' f � yl � N :J L _ � WiI1maY SI _ '3 1 75A-62 z 2F i iE 0 4' _'II PHkyfd9 i UM eE N " lli walF _ Nlinn4M F-. ly. ��rl I w L_ H "NM-GapA � - SA tG.ry.SI N NG aM Ave u 1L ��-.._—I— NGiarA ' e _ � WiI1maY SI _ '3 1 75A-62 z 2F i iE 7 6 V N 75A-64 v Is I I i Iii I il x` ■ 1 di. Y•�ht �. " a�` if � •'�� 1Q n y a,r y f, 40 1t1r1 75A-66 n a: WeA HU5 JT2• j o 3a§— al — I 1epa�s� �r�rN� - - — - �� Y I i I, !! 111111 I iw.n �.33wEl:�i ;R.9 .1 �� ��i u�` 75A-66 n a 5 g 8 S i pY S a3l $ 5�� - Y 75A-67 75A-68 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 F=:/:IIAYi-1 Resolution No. 2017-46 Page 1 of 3 75A-69 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. I. 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-70 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: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney ALDERETE, BACERRA, MCLOUGHLIN, VERINO (5) MENDOZA, NGUYEN (2) Mark McLoughlin Chairman CONTRERAS-LEO, CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, SARAH BERNAL, Recording Secretary, do hereby attest to and Resolution No. 2017-46 to be the original resolution adopted Commission of the City of Santa Ana on December 11, 2017. Date: Recording Secretary City of Santa Ana 75A-71 certify the attached by the Planning Resolution No. 2017-46 Page 3 of 3 75A-72 Planning and Building Agency Planning Division 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 (M-20) Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714)647-5804 1. OWNER/APPLICANT APPEAL APPLICATION Applicant CABRILLO COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC R00Ff(tB6\O Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation ( 310 ) 277-3787 Melling Address Area Code Phone No. Legal Owner Name: CAMUO( MUNIWFARTR 3.=(AM:R RTBISRU) Legal Owner Address: 9255 W. SUNSET BLVD. SUITE 920 LOS ANGELES, CA 90069 Phone No.: (310 ) 277-3787 It. PROPERTY INFORMATION Fax: ( Land Use VACANT LAND METRO EAST OVERLAYZONE ACTIVE URBAN DISTRICT Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building Zoning District General Plan Designation Location-KCASIOLLOPMDO .S AM&Q& N.GBRx OPARGOAr6Ef5TS REE Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REASON111. • In the following 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 CAP,f2 ALL ATTACHED TO Applicant's Signature: emVmlr-frmrappeat N Date: 12/20/2017 APPEAL APPLICATION NO. ZD I 1 -S-AP C— I *A: I 1:] 119101 i I*A:II:]119103 Page 1 of 9 75A-73 IRVINE 1900 Main Street. Suite 8D0 Irvine, California 92614 MVE T 949.809.3388 + P A R T N E R S www. nnve-architects.conn To: Santa Ana City Councilmembers From: MVE+Partners (on behalf of Applicant Robert H. Bisno) Date: December 20, 2017 Re: The Madison Mixed Use Community LOS ANGELES 888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2170 Los Angeles, California 92604 T 213.805.7600 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-74 2017-1220_PC Appeal_ liemol 12/20/2017 Page 2 MVE + 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 1BDR/1BA (1 SPACE) (1 SPACE) 54UNITS 51UNITS = 54STALLS = 51 STALLS 1BDR/1BA (2 SPACES; NON -TANDEM) 82UNITS = 164STALLS 1BID R/1BA (2 SPACES; TANDEM) 11UNITS = 22STALLS 1BDR+LOFT 2 SPACES: TANDEM 11UNITS = 22STALLS 213DR/213A (2 SPACES; TANDEM) 43 NTS = 86STALLS 3BA/2BA (2 SPACES; TANDEM) 04UNITS = 08STALLS LIVE/WORK (2 SPACES: TANDEM) 04UNITS = 08STALLS TOTAL RESID. PARKING PROVIDED 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 proiect dedicates two parking spaces to 155 residences (60% of total residential units). Within these 155 residences, 104 one -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 27th & December 11th public hearings. On December 11, 2017 Santa Ana 75A-75 2017-1220_PC Appeal_Memot 12/2012017 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 = 1.62stallslunit - 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-76 2017-1220_PC Appeal_tvlernol 12/20/2017 Page 4 -I- PARTNERS (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 Parking 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-77 2017-1220_PC AppealMemo1 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-78 memo 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-79 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 B of 9 75A-80 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY Community Risk Reduction Department A O. Box 57115, Irvine, CA 92619-7115 - I Fire Authority Road, Irvine, CA 92602 Planning and Development Services • www.ocfa.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: PR14S, 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. Sming ltrc Oros oL Alm Vop • Henan Part Cypress • Da. Pm • Wine • Laguna Hills • lagena Niguel • lag. W.& Lk, Famst • La Palma los Alamit • Missiun \'ajo • Plasmin Rarclm Sanm Margarita • San Ckmenm • San Jum Capistrano • Sanm Ane• ScABc e6 • Simmn • Tustin • Nlla Pork Westminster • Yotba Linda • and Uaiwarporatcd ArcasofecamgeCmmm- Page 9 019 75A-81 75A-82 HISIT D Y 4 Y yg� 9p��4y Cg�6��� 3 38868@� $eummlIMP2 Q -- 3 §IINitI5s51515h Hii5 4 q ^� 33 gg 5§5€ 55�55������S Ss4g R i pqqqg b� �tlgdgggi d�qgg� SgLg ti �D gg&gggg2g2y gg5q�ggd�tl pgEDpgyy �qq��yy��CgWC��z�3z3 �ggi �pp 15 g@3 q@�gig ���yy ggi gg3 iy£ygg33yy 3gg 7gg gg7 g�gggQ g�gg�g� � ¢ Ml �88888608�8866� � �La96 s 3®38 3 3 a 6� t1 68tlHB 9 &§ aDDa 5 ::=��_ a�9494�5�49HY 4949H4954459€�99��<:�:�;;es< '? 5 e�x4 � 9���ii V � 6 _ !!yy ppp �1, V .- s NG qg ULU a tit _ FetE 2 Z i z � Hil nil E2 Ul d a9x b`��� �p3p3�d` E y9s9,yg m C7 6 a�odR K �� E g3� ad=a C gpe tltl 6b �! 12 12 ¢3 a g$ g i 3_gg xyy z1 `�yyg C 9€G a� 6 Eg ygyg pp7 $g qgqg ,j pp& "bill�� o 'u �3 `(k@ r _p 6 565561 B RSd&&90[CtR`c§6ae8®56 R (.1 ISE s toy ` .21 $ 555 5 51 aWs a�� RUN�aas r� 5 E� 1 z g gg gggg %%gg 99 E Bs 5i aOR ........... SESpgp{@$ �5$ a a g 5 m e gp _- 3.5c4 �' t CX$;CC v 5 5.----:;Hm1; bw 7 114 Rq g be 5 az e�9sg E v Ise �1 a = 2 55 R 888�.S.S8S.83 mann •k +j$ rtgg 3 y@ g3gp ��9A6A$ i? tl HIS ggag a e c S"34iE.3p�w_ eARlt € 6 35 SZA aaa B3 e 85536 €€ 5 5 5 55: HISIT D t�- 9 6 e � 's� a `c O OI U im svaarsvdon�aen k2- ns' � a:� aye 2 s_ HI Hill IR i v 666666Raqua 666 G t➢➢{ (&3 g @°� I 69 • � 4 i i O • �0[- s 75A-85 IffRAtAP o � c c R 0 U O a e g 2 B U� z $ 8 8 ---- --—--—-- —-- — -- - -- a'a�6dd�a J 9 YY?s En a �a "sac4 ea:"as aEp�i�3'�iil� el e a i I a4i ! = 3 y� C3I i `I a o !'l-1.1_ I., 'I.C1 I -I�:, I jA L I--III"�i 1=1 - cin la j 1 -i il-'I If -II I' 1 I 2E� �nip L � _ I I I wn I Fit-. t _ `E a'a�6dd�a J 9 YY?s En a �a "sac4 ea:"as aEp�i�3'�iil� 3c(32�e � .o �o ' Vi'J YaY 1- F r� /A�v �r ua .i - 1 � /f OJg 06. 0 4 O k@ /" ! �• y •r s.. % !� �fj! �11 n�� �l�l4Jr� �^ �� �5y;�� � Co ' • f���� ����i/Ii ; fJfl %l t�l�l j�+%r!<� z, ��, � . ' ' �y ( 7F a n q$ •� J{1 i ` a - a`E U a 75A-91 SI F 'w L, I�'� ,.. �.•: ', � 1� 11 � Y 1121 Y v •.y .t_f l'�u. ;~ k _ 1 � v. w g rat ®1 ®1 v ME ml I L, I ,u /'L'mJa LjC_I 'lC I `J( la -v _ _ J M4 al ®Y 0 a 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 I4:/:II--]Ill III =1 75A-95 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-96 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 S-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-97 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 for the 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 forthe 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. DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-98 Page 1 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 Total rm Annual Rent Per Rent as a Share of Unit Income* $29,892 0.35 Avg. Household Income $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 Sales per Sq. Ft Estimated Annual Floor Retail Space of Space Sales 6,561 Source: Applicant; TNDG $300 $1,968,300 THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 2 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-99 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 or services from other firms. 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. DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-100 Page 3 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" (IO) 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 NAICS 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. J 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. Page 4 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-101 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. ' 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-102 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 (FFE) jobs in the County. THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 6 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-103 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 (000s) $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. Paye 7 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-104 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 2-3: Summary of Annually -Recurring Fiscal Revenue Impacts to City's General Fund The Madison General Fund Category Property Taxes' Sales Ta X2 Total City Total $267,531 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. Page 8 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-105 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 forthe 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 225jobs through indirect and induced economic activity. These are quantified as full- and part-time jobs lasting the equivalent of one year. Thus, accounting forthe 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-106 3.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO LOCAL ECONOMY Table 3-1. Summary of Economic Impacts by Impact Category, CONSTRUCTION PHASE The Madison Category City Total Remainderof 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 Employee Comnensotion (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-107 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 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 61,073 395 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 Note: Includes City of Santa Ana totals Source: TNDG; IMPLAN THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Paye 11 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-108 Employee 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. Paye 11 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-108 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, for the 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 61jobs 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 9 jobs from indirect/induced impacts. The payroll and benefits associated with these jobs would total approximately $486,000. THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 12 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-109 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) 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 Emplovee 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-110 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 Sector406), 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 Employees Employee - '-'-- Compensation/ Sector Description Employees 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 10 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. Page 14 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-111 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. Page 14 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-111 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. Properly 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 Amount Estimated Assessed Valuer $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 ' City of Santa Ana, Adopted Budget and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Page 15 DRAFT Economic Impact Analysis The Madison (Santa Ana, CA) 75A-112 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-113 75A-114 75A-115 O vl r ill N O O N w O O M .-I O ''I tD Vl N vl r �"� Ol O O R O O N c tp O O O N m M m m O Vl m M M N N Vf lD n p V a O V vl N al t0 N m .-I M C U r N m r m M N N ill M ai O p M M rl n N O C H m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 N O O m O O b N 0 p m N N N N M C 0 N M O N E kJ E m Oman Oorao 0 0 IO vl N IO r M .-I O O R O O IO lD O O O N Ol .-I IO b N O O c O m N m .ti m n v v oo v V Q N W W tip w N Ill I!1 Ill m m w m V M M U C N A N IA H N u_ W � N N a o d T VI u N N H C Z C C Y c O C— m m O a E u E O v vl p > m � E U 1° v u c c 0 0 3 E 0_. ,,t0 CC 0110 a r E ai ! o r ° 3 3 v c v v � c v c o O v C.- Y x E °' O •N O ~ 0 0 0 0 Y v N a a a a vl U c uE y U pp y C •N y a. f0 C C C C 0 V u m O u C W N O > U U u O O C K Q Q In Z 5 `o a. Mlnrormrnoa 9 > � I°l'l v`fli Irn vmi 75A-115 M 0 z g CL r m � a X 0 c ov o w CO Z r to ui 7 C n°'. rL 'o a 5 m c o O c 0 Y f0 i Q� 75A-116 75A-117 v O CL 0 CL a) r O c 0 v CL C a) E ai W m C m E v L O Y O CU u Y m O va L H m u y U CL 00 v W t "O Y C V O m O E oa C v C y 0 O + L Y w O L •C Y Y y T 3 (� 0 m O m a L• O y v 'O Y O O O Y v y vl L v a V U O V u m +' o @ O CU '> E •O C J m m y of 2 C .�., C rnLn 3 C y L F- 0 w v m a) vl a >, v O" c T tT v 0 vl ,n -6 -0 .O 3 al p y Y In O C -O y J O L O V)' m Y O a1tio L O Y EH— O -0 Z 'm V 'm bo O -O 3 v L Ll Y m Y Y y m Q° 3 ° m v c E m asv c_ v -C v aa) E c a v-0 Ytr o - a+ E Q L -O m -C Y a x v '^ a L v o o to v to m o v aj E L vi o a) u v y °N o O (UY O ~ O al 0a C 'O m cu vl vl YC u 0 L � bD 'O m 0 0 U as C a) OU O L U O- u a L O O O CL •o u 'O L� L _ 0 Y y +"' u m a) y m h ai d C O 'O ai CL t0 r .° . -0 L a) 'p aNi aui Yo L Q m L 0 a L— v in p a L 0 'p c u u v 0 L O >� O V UOJ w _� m y a> L as a Y r Z E .O ;m OL CL C L m _T C 'O ai Qj >' m L Y a a) Y Y yl L Y O N E v e vOi j cu u t O v t V y d O O L m C Y n O a Y In C L N m to am+ 'O C N tya OJ N u a@ H 'O C N 'O C CO O_ O 'NO L al O c E vOi 0) 'O X m C O .0 O Y L a) O '-' L Z O a Y vOCL i t C L O �^ C U a E a m L oa — v 3 L = o O O Y aJ m Y CL L �F E i.+ a) a L 0 w o 0 ° a H m Y a 0 0 L L O cco yE i v c y L O O v m a) O u a m +' ,� > C 0 a Y E ai N•• oO V m a .� 0 a Y rz O Uaj > 7 Y C }' M m as a) of O CL 0 Ql C 1011 C T V O -CJ 0 CL ) tV111 d a H O a/ .0 Y m a) L Y a Y V y m U U a0+ u L Y C m m L N C v -O v v v m> 'O — C t Y L O Y O M U 'O Y C m N C vl a) C O fl. u C Y E O X O .0 a) L 'O O m 0 YO al C 0 -6 m O E L y L aJ 0 Y Y 'V OL v m O 'O C YO Y a 3 U yl Uai U m O U -0m m 0 v F to a) m L c1 O m .0 v Y CO L j C 0 C c O m L E -O y U 0 U O m O v C .� ri ' 1Vi1 0 y 0 O a s m CO o v v v L 0_0 0 C w CL ,_-' C V 0 v t m N �' n L •Q (Q L (a L Y VI O V) _O ..ml a1 O N Y L ~ 3 1II 111 T C 0 u Y L m �0 0 �O as m U C v U L) Y Y W m M m M c m v a c u u v O a 0 In N C Y "-' -O vl .O U Y T y -O E m E L H v v u `o U Y s y U E O .n E E v v +• c E cu -6 ba O U O U_ H > L m C p_ L 0 a) C a) u a) talo U u L •L L C C L C O c Z a) a) 0 u O x V1 "V Y U Y (a a ai a)O U QJ w L 0 v O v a) \ C v v U U � 0 a N 'O L L 'O L— In Ql O" m i L a) 0 C O T OL 0 OL U +' v d O u al C V E a o O a C '^ (a W o m L Y Y .O 0 C m bfl L O m Qai N L N m a) Y Y U C � m;o y M Y a o N v E c v c — C y L a) lf1 _v L V 0 Vl L U L a U y U O 3 c m> O ao m r .0 m o w m c c O x m m m v o y F- m E [/) [/!• J L O �— O LL a) > U v vl O m E a) L L a) F a 75A-117 v O CL 0 CL a) r O c 0 v CL C a) E ai W m C m E v L O Y O CU u Y m O va L H m u y U CL 00 v W t "O Y C V O m O E oa 75A-118 w u 0 M O N O w C E r- h N cr OI of 0 0 m � o v E H C O Q u r+ w N � w m N m � u C O 0 Z 73 76 N G 00 C N M N H a z Q C a O a aw E m C 75A-118 w v E 0 0 m � o v E H C O Q u r+ w N � w m N m � u C O 0 Z 73 76 G G 00 C N N H a z Q u .a a a aw m C Gy E7 0 ti 75A-118 z g 0 0 N N m 0 m m h M m N C m m N N ei m v m N V W d y 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 m O m O O m m m 0 0 m O m O O O m o o m m a m v o m m O m m ti m N N m w m. m m M m L N C N m m m m m m N N b m V1 N m N m N N M N m V V1 N J Vl M M M M lD m m d' Lr n N- M M Vl N V- r- O ul N N N N N �(1 N N N V N .--I N N N E t/1 W N u v m L C m C C m tar E a v a v v v a Z m J � Y Y U j N O d C O � Q m a E E �+ • o c 'J n " c ¢ v o c J m W L L d T:^ uai O X tai a a c E O N m E E '^ c a m E "-' c c u 01 c E o o w v o a j w r o a 2 m m U U¢ U m 6 a a C C h - C o C f0 W O IO N m 0 0_ y y a C> a y U V m a a J N N m V 'N `m u— ;o m� > o o O I v o 'o n v m L w a a J v O L 0 v o 0 ¢ LL LL LL a a u 2 2 a> LD o> x� o� a r- o a w � F 75A-119 v v s o N Y Y O O O O a a L C C m N N U! 3 v v yYm N v � E E X N N V C a X N N N N m' ` v a a m a m a N C a m v O O o O N o O w a v `m o'c u "o m v a E `O m `O " N m w m `m c j, c V ¢ h C a m m V U m L m L E L s o N m L m o t N j« a A y 'O a w o mO vO Ea wj .m k2 w C� mcmccw m O > v w mo om mm o v O N U Uv m i -0N Gc n wO d m? a s d vui a d LL LL aE+ N l7 LL lJ a U a U S S W N W C S V1 G .N E m m m m y i 'N N y0 'm 'm 'm O- _ aa. 4.1 m m m O� j m m m m m m m m z g 0 0 N N m 0 m m h M m N C m m N N ei m v m N V W d y 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 m O m O O m m m 0 0 m O m O O O m o o m m a m v o m m O m m ti m N N m w m. m m M m L N C N m m m m m m N N b m V1 N m N m N N M N m V V1 N J Vl M M M M lD m m d' Lr n N- M M Vl N V- r- O ul N N N N N �(1 N N N V N .--I N N N E t/1 W N u v m L C m C C m tar E a v a v v v a Z m J � Y Y U j N O d C O � Q m a E E �+ • o c 'J n " c ¢ v o c J m W L L d T:^ uai O X tai a a c E O N m E E '^ c a m E "-' c c u 01 c E o o w v o a j w r o a 2 m m U U¢ U m 6 a a C C h - C o C f0 W O IO N m 0 0_ y y a C> a y U V m a a J N N m V 'N `m u— ;o m� > o o O I v o 'o n v m L w a a J v O L 0 v o 0 ¢ LL LL LL a a u 2 2 a> LD o> x� o� a r- o a w � F 75A-119 y O ti N M 0 00 ut 1� M lO N V 1� n ry .d N 00 V 00 N C b y 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 41 O m O O M M a0 O O Ol O 01 O O O v e�� In v v c m a m v In v v v v v m a m v a v N 01 00 00 l0 l0 t0 m O M O a � O vl Ol I� r -I v1 T N Ot ut Ot M CN O O vt vt Ol OO Vf O O lD llt .ti n M N I� N N N l0 00 N N d U J Ot I� n N NtD O.ti Q 00 e -I O 01 V N O I� N n Ot O - t+f N .ti .-I N - e-1 V .4 rl N E `^ N v LN v N O ly O O M M V W R O N M O m l0 N N N N Ql l0 cn Ol ui m 00 10 s � o N E H 0 Y Y C L O y E G O O O y C O V N N a A= a 2 N m y w N Y L C C N y v v¢ m V a N 2 m -O N W L L pp pp n N U y0 6 y GI N V yOj 3 v o o m E v n c c o c v `w v m a o» my m v v g m m m O ON v Gl C> a, L u u V L O C C O J O N :E 76N N m O O VV UO O n WL mOUI d:E T LO_ 2 a Q QU x S Q> I7 x Q « u a ,- x v m y `m v m d! a m N c o ti ` o o` 0 N o a o L, u a v a m a v E sa E c c o_ o n c o 0 L O m Y C O u f0 L O N O m -C Iv N N -0 0 c a`i a a �, p n n a v o m n 0 E N N v v N o a o w v c v E v v n a `w c> c y L L c o Y c c L o N v M M m m 0 v 2,o > V V S S W V1 W S N C y O Y f0 t0 i Y Y 0 J J �' IO fO V IV (O fO aq+ af0+ Q�� z rc ac s z Q 2 rc z z s z z z rc y O ti N M 0 00 ut 1� M lO N V 1� n ry .d N 00 V 00 N C b y 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 41 O m O O M M a0 O O Ol O 01 O O O v e�� In v v c m a m v In v v v v v m a m v a v N 75A-120 01 00 00 l0 l0 t0 m O M O a � O vl Ol I� r -I v1 T N Ot ut Ot M CN O O vt vt Ol OO Vf O O lD llt .ti n M N I� N N N l0 00 N N d U J Ot I� n N NtD O.ti Q 00 e -I O 01 V N O I� N n Ot O - t+f N .ti .-I N - e-1 V .4 rl N E `^ a LN N O ly O O M M V W R O N M O m l0 N N N N Ql l0 cn Ol ui m 00 10 � L E H 75A-120 d U LN E 0 C C L U y E G N �- y C O V N O A= m 2 N m O w N Y N y v v¢ m V a 2 -O W L L pp pp n N U y0 6 y GI N V yOj v o o m E v n E LL' o c v `w v a o» my m g m m m O ON v Gl C> a, L u u V L O C C O J O N :E 76N N m O O VV UO O n WL mOUI d:E T LO_ 2 a Q QU x S Q> I7 x Q I -F- OW 75A-120 w m o .-+ m n N m CO rN N 00 N Ir N Vl lO Ol M Lc Ill N M N N OGO C lD Ill N n ID V1 N O1 01 n M M lD O O1 l N N l0 Q m n N N O 00 O 111 m N N N M O w lD m c ul O n m m Op N N l0 n m m O N N tO N O m O m V V N N mN O N C V N N 00 ut ur D o n vl n v eo v m rn �o vl m ao 0o W a m O Ill M- l0 l0 O Ill 00 N Ol m m O O N w N y N O N N m 01 n 00 tp ry N N T n- N a0 N o. a N N rl N N M N N N m c = m 0 E a LV N QZ J u Q N OWi m m O O O O O O O N m W O 0 0 0 0 Mmmmvvvaaaaaavin �n in vl H 75A-121 m m m N O Y N Y O O L � 'O C m N H m — m v N v a � m n � vl vl W c x O1 u X d p p Ul O O 12 m N E° ,w m u m y N` am. U m m a w a m o •� v E a m c rE 0 ° ,�, m L d 'O O u G m m c O m m E O � E •� v > m 2 c M c m m m oq-10 m v m c a J Y O m L C _C C — O U i N y m d O C U O� U °o C O m o O C y i m U' U Vl U CvUi G N U n I j '' w s O —= ` E N m m m m m m m m m m `1 J 6 '^ , Yp 0 d Ul N Cl d Ol W d O1 d Ul O E— J Q Q N QZ J u Q N OWi m m O O O O O O O N m W O 0 0 0 0 Mmmmvvvaaaaaavin �n in vl H 75A-121 m m m �o 0o v� N n ul m oo ul N .-I m o 0 m o m �ill I� M lD Vl M N l0 Ol h Vl O N N N !!1 lD O Ol Ol I� M b Ql OO OO M CO 1� N ci I� r Ol W Vl m m N W N y Ol V m Ol m V V rl N Ol N lD N M M rl N v m � a x W Vf V m N N N Vl Vl O V 1 1 m n O O O OI W m rn rn of m m m Lo m m vl W m Ol al Ol Cl eo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a J l0 m O .ti m W Ol N W N Ol N VI W m m w ill m m W m H Vl N I� cl N N Dl Ot Ie M m ll O Ol Gl N Ol 'i N tp Q cl�m rl�m Lr�w N O 0 O Ill m N N N w O 0 m 0 O m m m c0 N .ti � m" m m N N l0 c-1 O D O Vl M O m V N N O1 N O N C O N N F N N N 00 lA lA l m m w w l a m O Vl m W y Cr W O ill 00 N 01 OO M O O ill Vl N N O N .-1 M O1 I� W lD Ol N N O1 I� n N W N 1 a N N C N N N T N V N N M C = O E Q N N a Z � a 1'i l0 I� W O N N m V �Il lD W m N N M R H VI M M tmYl V' V V R V V V R C V V0l VOl VOl N O 75A-122 N O N Y O O L O V C O N L N _ c °1 3 m n UI d E N V v g 2 a 0 H N U O vl N Ol C X W V X t2N 00-0 W W 0 O O m i-' O`O m m y vi v 0 m CCl m f0 ul U m m W c a c a m n m E a o `0 v Em m c r o v L o ' c m t m m '^ O t 1O a v h m m E E c m E w ,m. c m a L. c c_ = c io o V W a m m c u L c c c m ,"n Z a 6 u0. w 2 l'mJ u v0i l7 2 m m m (O m m •Y N Y Y V OdE— N a Z � a 1'i l0 I� W O N N m V �Il lD W m N N M R H VI M M tmYl V' V V R V V V R C V V0l VOl VOl N O 75A-122 i 75A-123 O O U N O O O O M m M m V1 M M a N N w w — w n1Oi a1Oi v O z z rL Z g o 00 a a s a m � H i 75A-123 O O O O M m M m V1 M M O i 75A-123 75A-124 v L m C O C N "O aJ H vi c N L c v m J m > aJ Y C Q E U E O C O cu 0 N v J m w E L w C O Y_ C N a U C L U Y N v 0 0. to c .3 0 0 v t T N N O tlo v C .0 O z cg G E O -0 a, Y Q cuL u X N O i U J N 0 > O c d '- C m J bLo C C c m m O u m ? N N N a, E N ` N O 4Z J a o`a J Y o a O c m -° CJ c c a0 m c C U O cJ 3 O vN L O O. Y L y aJ II N L y J 7 J v y a C � 7 to w=3o O a m aI E m > 0 y N LL N L 1p L N N y V C 'C 0 O v n 3N L v cu a Q J C CU -p m I oL 7 c a1 cc Y CU L 7 O m i 75A-125 ° L 0 00m Qa, C .0 CU w E cu v=0 E °_ CL c: a) a o C Y E O_ J E C VI al .a aj O O. Y [O Y 0 X C O Y y Y C O w O a°° N d O V C E c a � L c— E m U > U Y c m > C -0 C + v m m '0 . O a1 N L o ai Q y E X vy aN L 0 C H N 0 N C o o Jp_ ° Y N O C c .00 C N Q y N m jU J J O N C C Y w 7 m° O v c E cp mv0�?� u U . m mm w 7 cyNi C> V 3 L 'aC-+ 0 0_ m v >• u m J u C L = -0 0 _ N — _ ° O O Y O a+ 'N N Q L vi m N -OO O "m0 J _O CL T rn w w N> '° N -O E m j OJ -0 7 C U 'O (U6 '101 v c v c m J> m >. Y L O v1 E V m o-0 CL N C N O Y O v w L t'N w E C O E N C IO •II N a1 U Q C W w c O. t m E W c -0 �' 0 m E 0 o en 0 CL -0Cz m 0 •— •O L U -C N n) d m aJ N'0 '0 c o 0 p L n w m o N N N C 0 C E E O m v O 7 o O w. 0 0 ^ o0 o c j c m 'L enN m Y m L n C c C L O Y C G N C a1 m Y 0 N E > m °c 0` C O. m y 3 ,N, O c 0. E 0 U °J o m p L n w m Ou U U y +' CL C c'i w ? Wtio N v 'o m o° ar m e c v a C Y— O E al N m N J O Y m �O w CJ N N E m N U O E II _0 O c m in -0 E c O Z Y Q .1LC J N °U O. N d vi - U I Jo Z L m =' -C v o ar c L r O Y O v L Q o> y Q c aL to m O wc E Q II w ' N N L L m '0 N L O c Y '^ O W J O J O 0 o m U a Q U m o- o c m 0@ > aJ to m — U J C CL 75A-125 75A-126 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-127 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 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. 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-128 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-129 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-130 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 3m day of April 2018 by the following vote: Miguel A. Pulido Mayor Resolution No. 2018 -XX Page 5 of 10 75A-131 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: AGN-, 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-132 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 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 belowrio 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-133 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-134 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-135 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-136 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: 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-137 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 3rd day of April 2018 by the following vote: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney By: 'J;7 GJisr f Lisa Storck Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTENTIONS: Councilmembers: Miguel A. Pulido Mayor 75A-138 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-139 Resolution No. 2018 -XX Page 3 of 3 75A-140 CORRESPONDENCE 75A-142 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 3rd City Council hearing. Thank you, Jill Ann Arabe, AICP Senior Planner/Urban Designer City of Santa Ana iarabe aasanta-ana.org (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 75A1143 IdCOX -ASTLE NICWOLS0N 1 Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 3121 Michelson Drive I Suite 200 1 Irvine, CA 92612 direct: 949.260.4655 I main: 949.260.4600 tpaone@coxcastle.com I vcard I bio I website Selected as 2018 "Law Firm of the Year" in Land Use and Zoning Law .IbNr d. FIRM a�7tiEfR' by U.S. News & World Report- Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms" °t t� For more information, visit our blog Lay of the Land This communication is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the addressee, or someone responsible for delivering this document to the addressee, you may not read, copy or distribute It. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is. strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please call us promptly and securely dispose of it. Thank you. 75A-144