09-06-17 Zone Change Proposed Apt Complex 1725 WEST KATELLA AVENUE
TO: Chair Glasgow and
Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1853-16, ZONE CHANGE
NO. 1284-16, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0883-16, DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4888-16,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 0248-17, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 0004-17, FOR A
NEW 94 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1725 WEST KATELLA
AVENUE
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to redevelop an existing light-industrial complex with a 94-unit apartment
complex with podium parking. Project amenities include a fitness center, club room, pool and
lounge courtyard, and roof deck. The project involves a request for a Zone Change from
Commercial Recreation (CR) to Urban Mixed Use (UMU) in order for the site to be developed with
apartments. Due to the fact that the density proposed by the applicant exceeds the allowable density
under the General Plan, the application includes a development agreement involving the transfer of
development rights for 28 of the 94 units from a portion of the adjacent City water well property to
the subject site. In exchange for this development rights transfer the applicant will provide public
benefits in the form of traffic signal, sidewalk, and streetscape improvements in the immediate
project vicinity. The applicant is also requesting an Administrative Adjustment for a 15-space (8%)
reduction in required parking as well as a 1-foot reduction (4%) in parking structure and project
access drive aisle width.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The following Planning Commission actions are recommended:
1) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1853-16, ASSOCIATED
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
Planning Commission
Agenda Item
September 6, 2017
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 2
ERRATA FOR A NEW 94 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 1725 WEST KATELLA AVENUE
2) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE APPROVING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE BRANCH WEST
APARTMENTS PROJECT AT 1725 WEST KATELLA
AVENUE
3) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
ORDINANCE ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 1284-16 FOR A
NEW 94 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT
1725 WEST KATELLA AVENUE
4) Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE
PLAN REVIEW NO. 0883-16, DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4888-16,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 0248-17, AND DESIGN REVIEW
NO. 4888-16 FOR A NEW 94 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 1725 WEST KATELLA AVENUE
AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Section 17.08.020.B.2 Section 17.10.020, and Section 17.10.060.E.
authorize the Planning Commission to review and take action on applications for Zone Changes,
Major Site Plan Review, and Mitigated Negative Declarations. OMC Section 17.10.070 requires the
approval of Design Review when a project requires Major Site Plan Review. OMC Section
17.10.050.D authorizes the Zoning Administrator to take action on adjustments of up to 10% of a
development standard, with Section 10.10.040.C granting the Planning Commission authority to act
on such items in conjunction with other applications. OMC Section 17.44.100 authorizes the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on Development Agreements.
Section 17.08.020.B provides for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City
Council on discretionary applications where the final determination rests with the City Council.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
On July 19, the City sent a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to a total of
93 property owners and tenants within a 300 foot radius, initiating the pub lic review period for the
environmental document as described in the Environmental Review section below. A Planning
Commission Public Hearing Notice for the subject hearing was again sent to the same 93 property
owners/tenants on August 18, 2017. The notice was also published in the Orange City News
newspaper on August 24, 2017. The project site was also posted in three locations with the
notification on August 21, 2017, and at Orange City Hall.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1853-16 was prepared to
evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and
in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines (Exhibit B). The Mitigated Negative Declaration
finds that the project will have less than significant impacts to the environment, with the
implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. The 20-day public review period
was initiated on July 19, 2017, ending on August 7, 2017. Notices were mailed to 93 property
owners/tenants and posted at the Orange County Recorder on July 19, 2017. Copies of the
document were available for public review at the Orange Public Library & Local History Center,
the Taft Branch Library and at City Hall.
No comments were received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Applicant: Brad Perozzi, Branch West
Property Owner: Tom and Debra Stull
Property Location: 1725 West Katella Avenue
Existing General Plan
Land Use Element designation:
Urban Mixed Use (UMIX)
1.5-3.0 FAR; 30-60 du/acre
Existing Zoning
Classification:
Commercial Recreation (CR)
Old Towne: Not Applicable
Specific Plan/PC: Not Applicable
Site Size: 1.1 acres
Circulation: The site is located on Katella Avenue, a 6-lane Major
Arterial. Katella Avenue is improved to the ultimate
right-of-way in the project vicinity.
Intersecting Katella at the project site is Struck Avenue,
which is designated as a Collector Street. The
Katella/Struck traffic signal is aligned with the project
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 4
access.
The Anaheim Regional Intermodal Transportation Center
(ARTIC) is located on Katella Avenue, 0.6 miles west of
the project site.
OCTA Bus Route 50 (Long Beach-Orange) also serves
Katella Avenue in the project vicinity with 30 minute
headways.
The Santa Ana River Trail Regional Commuter Bikeway
is located 0.1 miles west of the project site.
Existing conditions: The 1.1-acre site is presently developed with a 2-story
19,680 sq. ft. commercial/light industrial building and
associated parking.
Surrounding land uses
and Zoning:
Surrounding properties have a General Plan designation
of UMIX, and are zoned CR.
The site is surrounded by a City water well to the east, a
single 2-story commercial office building to the west, the
Stadium Promenade commercial center parking lot to the
north, and a multi-building 2-story office complex to the
south.
Development to the south is separated from the project
site by Katella Avenue. Development to the west is
separated from the site by a field of parking and vehicular
and utility easement along the shared property line. The
closest buildings associated with the Stadium Promenade
are approximately 245 feet (Starbucks), 425 feet (Lazy
Dog), and 660 feet (movie theater) away from the site. It
should be noted that the City has entered into an
agreement with SC Fuels to develop a surface parking lot
on a portion of the water well property immediately to the
east of the site to serve the SC Fuels office building on
Katella Avenue, southwest of the project site.
Previous
Applications/Entitlements:
None.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a five-story (66’4”), 94-unit apartment complex including a leasing
office, club room, fitness center, landscaped swimming pool/outdoor lounge area, and roof deck.
The pool courtyard would be situated on the west side of the site.
Podium parking for the development would be provided on two levels, one of which would be
partially subterranean. The parking will be wrapped in some areas by the fitness center and storage,
mechanical, and electrical areas. However, the interface between much of the parking podium and
surrounding development is provided in the form of dense planting and walls with green screens.
As part of the project, the applicant is proposing streetscape enhancements along the site frontage
consisting of landscaped planters and plaza space. Existing street trees (palm trees) would r emain.
The intention of the frontage landscaping is to provide a positive and pedestrian-oriented interface
with the sidewalk to respond to existing and anticipated future patterns of pedestrian activity in the
area.
The applicant is requesting an Administrative Adjustment to allow a 15-space reduction (8%) in the
Code required parking for the residential units, and a 1-foot (4%) reduction in drive aisle widths.
The proposed project is only possible under a change in zoning to UMU zoning because the exis ting
CR zoning does not allow residential development. Therefore, the review of the project against
development standards is based on a UMU zoning scenario.
Building and Site Design
The proposed project features a contemporary building design that reflects an urban housing
aesthetic. Based on the City’s mixed use land use program for this area of the City, the applicant
has developed a design that considers the pedestrian activity that presently exists in the area in
relation to major venues in Anaheim, and is expected to increase over time as incremental infill
development occurs in the area. The design responds to the curvature of the roadway, as well as the
potential for evening firework viewing at Angels Stadium and Disneyland for project residents.
The building elevations are articulated through the extensive use of balconies, windows and varied
wall planes. The variety of building materials incorporated into the design also lend a distinctive
architectural character to the project. These materials include brick veneer, bamboo wood siding,
patina metal panels, plaster, metal awnings, and glass and metal balcony railings. Window
treatment is varied, and incorporates a combination of storefront windows at the pedestrian level,
and industrially referenced windows at the “tower” element on the south elevation and southeast
corner of the building in recognition of the remaining industrial development associated with the
land use history of the Katella corridor.
Proposed signage for the project consists of laser cut aluminum letters and graphics with a rust
finish. Signage would be installed at the top of the tower element on the south elevation, as well as
pedestrian and vehicular oriented project identification, address, and directional signage at th e street
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 6
level on the south and east building elevations. Ground floor level identification and address signs
would be integrated at the top edge of metal awnings, as would parking signs. All proposed signage
complies with the sign area requirements for the development. It should be noted that there is a
typographical error on Sheet S-1.1 of the plans where sign type “04 Address Signage” is depicted as
having a 2-inch numeral height. The proposed height is 2-feet. Staff has included a condition of
approval (Condition 13) requiring this sheet be corrected and resubmitted to the Planning Division
prior to issuance of building permits for sign installation.
Development Standards
Required Under
Proposed UMU Zoning
Proposed
Project
Code Section
Building Height 45’
Building height may
exceed the allowed
maximum provided no
part of the building
exceeds ¼ of the
horizontal distance
between the ground
point of the building and
nearest single-family
residential district
boundary.
(Note: building height
in excess of 45’ is
allowed without a
Variance or CUP
provided that site is not
in proximity to single
family residential uses.)
66’ 4”
17.19.120
Table 17.19.120,
Note (i)
Distance
between
structures
20’ Window wall to
window wall
20’ Window wall to
non-window wall
15’ Non-window wall to
non-window wall
Not
Applicable.
Project
building
components
are integrated
as a single
structure
rather than
multiple
buildings.
Table 17.19.090
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 7
Residential
units are built
on top of the
parking.
Fence height 42” Required front yard
or corner side yard
6’
Not
Applicable.
17.19.140
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
1.5-3.0 2.14 Table 17.19.120
Landscaping Setbacks and open areas
of the site not occupied
by buildings shall be
landscaped.
There UMU
zoning
provides for a
0’ setback
from all
property lines,
however the
site perimeter,
pool
courtyard,
roof deck, and
plaza space
along the
Katella
frontage/
streetscape
are
landscaped.
17.19.160
Loading area
(non-residential)
Not Applicable Not
Applicable
Lot size
(residential)
40,000 sq. ft. 1.1 acre
(47,916 sq.
ft.)
Table 17.19.120
Lot frontage 100’ 186’ Table 17.19.120
Lot depth Not Applicable 241-310’
Open space,
useable (total)
15% of total floor area
of dwelling units
11,470 sq. ft.
12,867 sq. ft. 17.19.090
Open space,
common
Up to 1/3 of the required
usable open space.
3,785 sq. ft.
9,410 sq. ft. 17.14.110
Open space,
private
2,867 sq. ft.
Up to 25% of the total
3,457 sq. ft.
Balconies
17.19.090.D
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 8
open space requirement
may be met by counting
any private exterior open
space areas (patios and
balconies) provided
within the project.
Patios and balconies
must be a min. 40 sq. ft.
in area to be counted
toward private open
space.
range in size
from 46 sq. ft.
to 70 sq. ft. in
area.
Parking 176 spaces total
(including 19 guest
parking spaces)
Studio: 1.2 spaces/unit
1 Bedroom: 1.7
spaces/unit
2 Bedroom: 2.0
spaces/unit
Guest: 0.2 spaces/unit
161 spaces
(including 19
guest parking
spaces)
This
represents the
8% reduction
being
requested in
the
Administra-
tive Adjust-
ment.
Table
17.34.060.A
Setback, Front 10’ Max.
Up to 20’ where
sidewalk oriented
pedestrian amenities are
provided.
3’ to 20’
(varies) to
building face.
Plaza space
provided
along frontage
where setback
exceeds 10’.
Table 17.19.120
Setback, Rear 0’ 33’
Table 17.19.120
Setback, Side 0’ 6’8” on west
side; 40’ on
east side.
Table 17.19.120
Setback, Street
Side
10’ Max.
Up to 20’ where
sidewalk oriented
pedestrian amenities are
provided.
Not
Applicable
Table 17.19.120
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 9
APPLICATION(S) REQUESTED/ REQUIRED FINDINGS
Development Agreement: The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement to
allow for the transfer of development rights from the adjacent City water well site in order to
achieve the desired 94 units and project density of 85 dwelling units/acre associated with the project
in exchange for public benefits including traffic signal/intersection, streetscape improvements, and
sidewalk installation.
Required Findings:
1. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or redevelopment plan;
2. Is compatible with the uses authorized in the district or planning area in which the
real property is located;
3. Is in conformity with public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good
land use practices;
4. Will be beneficial to the health, safety, and general welfare consistent with the policy
of the City with respect to development agreements as provided in Section 17.44.200;
5. Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property in the City.
Zone Change: The applicant is proposing a Zone Change to establish consistency between the
zoning of the site and the General Plan, as well as to establish UMU zoning that allows residential
development on the site.
Required Findings:
There are no required findings for a Zone Change, however, the following must be stated in
support the request including:
1. Reasons for the recommendation;
2. The relationship of the proposed amendment to the General Plan and applicable Specific
Plans;
3. Environmental determination.
Major Site Plan: The applicant is proposing a Major Site Plan to construct a new 94 -unit
apartment complex, podium parking consisting of 161 spaces, leasing office, club room, fitness
center, swimming pool/outdoor lounge area, and roof deck.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 10
Required Findings:
1. The project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods.
2. The project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design
guidelines or specific plan requirements.
3. The project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on-
and off-site.
4. City services are available and adequate to serve the project.
5. The project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse
environmental effects.
Design Review: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the architectural design,
landscaping, signage, and streetscape improvements associated with the proposed apartment
complex and parking structures.
Required Findings:
1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive
standards and design criteria referenced and/or recommended by the DRC or other
reviewing body for the project (OMC 17.10.070.F.1).
2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the
Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.070.F.2).
3. The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally
consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans,
applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.070.F.3).
4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential
Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale,
massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve
or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.070.F.4).
Administrative Adjustment: The applicant is requesting an Administrative Adjustment from
Section 17.34.110 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1-foot reduction in the width of certain
parking structure drive aisles.
Required Findings:
1. The reduction in standards will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
general welfare of persons residing or working on the subject property or in the vicinity.
2. Issuance of the permit does not compromise the intent of this code.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 11
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Project Density and Development Agreement
The UMIX General Plan land use designation in place for the proposed project site accommodates a
maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units/acre. The project proposes a density of 85
dwelling units/acre.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages the transfer of development rights for
limited purposes, among them being the creation of housing opportunities. Table LU -4
(Attachment 7) explains that it is appropriate to transfer development rights between sites located in
the UMIX land use district for various purposes, including the creation of housing. The proposed
project site is a candidate for such a development rights transfer.
The water well site adjacent to the project site is 0.72-acres in size. The UMIX General Plan land
use designation represents a development potential of 43 dwelling units or 94,090 sq. ft. of non-
residential building area. Because of the long-term use of the water well site for water extraction by
the City, the water well site will not experience redevelopment in the future. Therefore, a transfer
of a portion of the rights from that site to the proposed project site is being proposed. Given the fact
that the City does not have a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance in place, the applicant has
worked with the City to craft a Development Agreement that offers the City public benefits along
the Katella Avenue corridor in the project vicinity in exchange for additional project density.
The Katella Corridor in the vicinity of the project site and its intersection with Struck Avenue is
characterized by aging traffic signal hardware and operational components in need of replacement,
roadway segments that lack sidewalks, and roadway medians in need of landscape and irrigation
refurbishment. The transferring of development rights in exchange for additional project density
enables the City to leverage public benefits including intersection and signal improvements,
sidewalk improvements, and aesthetic enhancements to the Katella corridor streetscape, an
important gateway to the City from the boundary shared by the Cities of Orange and Anaheim. It is
also a location that experiences high volumes of pedestrian activity and Orange restaurant patronage
associated with sporting and entertainment events that occur in the vicinity. Therefore, there will
also be a public safety benefit associated with improved sidewalk, signal and intersection
improvements.
Issue 2: Zone Change
Presently, the proposed project site is zoned Commercial Recreation (CR), consistent with the
zoning of the Katella corridor from Batavia Street west to the city limits. This zoning district
provides for a limited variety of commercial and entertainment-oriented commercial uses, along
with recognizing remaining light industrial uses along the Katella corridor.
The CR zoning is not consistent with the UMIX General Plan land use designation. The City
established mixed use zoning in 2011 for all other mixed use General Plan land use districts in the
City (Old Towne, South Main Street, Town and Country Road, and Uptown Orange) in order to
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 12
establish consistency between the zoning and General Plan as required by state law, and also
implement the land use policy of the General Plan. In the case of the Katella Corridor,
establishment of UMU zoning has not been achieved at this time, although it has com e before the
Council and been met with both interest and concern on the part of property owners, businesses and
Council members. Based on the outcome of previous public hearings attempting to establish UMU
zoning, the Council expressed its preference for considering Zone Change requests on a project-
specific basis, and basing such changes on the merits of the project.
The proposed project is the first project in the Katella corridor to pursue this course of action.
Resolution:
Staff believes the requested Zone Change is appropriate because it establishes General Plan-Zoning
consistency for the project site, and brings the City into compliance with state planning law.
Surrounding properties would remain with inconsistent status only to be considered at such time site
redevelopment or tenant repositioning may be requested by the property owner. The proposed
change in project site zoning functions as an economic development incentive for the subject
property, providing a greatly expanded menu of land use options for the site, regardless of whether
or not the property owner chooses to redevelop the site.
Issue 3: Administrative Adjustments
Parking
The applicant is requesting a 15-space reduction in the parking required for the apartments. This
represents an 8% reduction in the Code required parking for the project. While the Code would
require 176 spaces, 161 are proposed.
Given the City Council’s recent concerns about the adequacy of the City’s multi -family parking
standards, staff advised the applicant that it would be best to avoid the need for an Administrative
Adjustment. However, the applicant felt strongly that the number of parking spaces proposed
would be more than adequate to meet the needs of the tenants. To support the applicant’s posit ion,
staff asked the applicant to undertake a parking utilization survey of a comparable apartment
complex in Orange to demonstrate that the proposed parking conditions would adequately serve the
project.
In response, the applicant performed a parking utilization survey of the Allure Apartments on at
3099 West Chapman Avenue (Attachment 12). This project was selected due to the fact that the
unit mix is proportionally similar to the proposed project. Additionally, neither project includes 3 -
bedroom units. The Allure Apartments experience an occupancy level of 97%. The property was
surveyed in at 1:00 a.m. on a Thursday night, a time of day and day of week when the most
residents would likely be parked in the structure. The total parking provided for the Allure project
represents a parking supply ratio of 1.82 spaces/unit. The parking utilization survey revealed an
effective peak parking demand ratio of 1.50 spaces/unit. The proposed Branch West project
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 13
represents a parking supply ratio of 1.71 spaces/unit. Therefore, the survey supports the parking
ratio reduction proposed by the applicant.
It should be noted that the City granted a variance for parking in 2013 for the AMLI project located
on The City Drive. The requested parking ratio was 1.7 spaces/unit representing a reduction of
11.5% and was supported by a parking utilization study prepared by AMLI that included parking
surveys of several apartment complexes, including the Renaissance apartments on West Chapman
Avenue.
It should also be noted that the City amended its parking standards in 2012 for residential uses
following approval of the Renaissance, Allure, and Archstone apartment projects in Uptown
Orange, increasing the guest parking required per unit by 0.2 spaces/unit. This change was n ot
prompted by any parking problems associated with these developments; rather, they were based on
observed parking problems at older apartment developments in other areas of the City.
Drive Aisle Width Reduction
A 1-foot reduction in the width of project drive aisles is being requested to allow for a slight
reduction in the footprint of the parking structures in order to provide additional space around the
site perimeter to accommodate vehicular access and perimeter landscaping.
Resolution:
Staff believes that the Administrative Adjustment requested by the applicant is appropriate for the
apartment units given the findings of the parking utilization survey, and demonstrated functionality
and adequacy of the requested parking ratio of the apartment complex studied in that survey.
However, Planning Commission action should consider the findings of the survey in relation to the
Council’s interest in the City’s multi-family parking standards.
Staff believes that the Administrative Adjustment being requested for the drive aisle width
reduction is acceptable. It does not diminish the functionality of the on-site circulation, and enables
the applicant to incorporate high quality perimeter landscaping consistent with the City’s objectives
for City gateway areas in alignment with the Urban Design Element of the General Plan.
Issue 4: Relationship to Housing Element
As indicated in the City’s 2014 General Plan Housing Element, the City of Orange has a Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 363 units for the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning
period. With the housing construction that has occurred in Orange from 2014-2017, the City’s
remaining RHNA need is 346 units. The income affordability breakdown for those units is as
follows:
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 14
Income Level Remaining RHNA Need
Very Low 83
Low 58
Moderate 57
Above-Moderate 148
Total 346
Source: City of Orange Housing Element Report to the State of
California covering the 2016 calendar year.
The Housing Element includes Policy Action 7 (Attachment 13), which directs the City to pursue
infill development as a strategy for the development of owner- or renter-occupied housing units.
In the case of the proposed project site, the UMIX General Plan designation accommodates a
residential density range of 30-60 dwelling units/acre. The California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) recognizes residential densities of greater than 30 units/acre as
densities under which even market-rate units may be available to lower-income households. Due to
the development characteristics (e.g., underutilized commercial property, large surface parking lots)
of many properties in the City’s UMIX districts, the majority of sites that have the greatest potential
for infill residential development are concentrated in these districts. Furthermore, based on the
density range allowed in these districts, the City is looking to these areas of the City as the key
locations where new residential development eligible to be counted toward satisfying the affordable
housing needs of the community.
City of Orange New Housing Construction Policy
Section 17.14.015 of the OMC requires developers with projects of 11 of more units to participate
in discussion with the City to evaluate the feasibility of providing affordable units within the
development project, and references various incentives available to assist in making the integration
of affordable units economically feasible for developers. The OMC section also references the New
Housing Construction Policy contained in the City’s 1994 Affordable Housing Plan, which also
cites various incentives and funding assistance offered by the City.
While staff did engage in discussions with the applicant to explore the potential integration of
restricted affordable units in the project, with the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, the
funding mechanisms referenced in the Affordable Housing Plan are no longer available.
Additionally, the development incentives referenced in the Affordable Housing Plan have been
addressed through Code changes that have taken place since the adoption of that Plan including
more accommodating density, building height, and open space standards for residential projects
associated with the Urban Mixed Use development standards. Therefore, while the applicant is not
providing dedicated affordable units due to financial feasibility, the very nature of its characteristics
responds to the spirit of the New Construction Policy.
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 15
Resolution:
The proposed project is beneficial with respect to Housing Element implementation and satisfying
the City’s RHNA. While the existing CR zoning does not allow for residential development, the
proposed change in zoning to UMU would accommodate residential development. Therefore, the
proposed project amounts to a housing opportunity site, and accomplishes Housing Element Policy
Action 7 by encouraging the creation of infill housing.
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Staff Review Committee:
The Interdepartmental Streamlined Multidisciplinary Accelerated Review Team (SMART)
determined that the plans, technical studies, and content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration were
satisfactory, and recommended Planning Commission approval of the project on July 12, 2017
subject to the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and staff
recommended conditions.
Design Review Committee:
The DRC conducted a preliminary review of the project design on December 7, 2016. The
Committee formally reviewed the subject proposal at the August 2, 2017 meeting, and unanimously
(4-0) recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and project subject to staff recommended conditions and mitigation measures in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the addition of Condition of Approval 14 requiring the
signage return to the DRC prior to the issuance of building permit. The DRC Staff Reports and
Minutes are provided as Attachments 8 through 11.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-17 for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1853-16
(including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Errata)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-17 for Development Agreement No. 0004-17
(including Draft Ordinance)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-17 for Zone Change No. 1284-16 (including Draft
Ordinance)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-17 for Major Site Plan Review No. 0833-16, Design
Review No. 4888-16, and Administrative Adjustment No. 0248-17
5. Vicinity Map
6. Site Photos
7. Transfer of Development Rights Excerpt from City of Orange General Plan Land Use Element
Planning Commission Staff Report
September 6, 2017
Page 16
8. Design Review Committee Staff Report, August 2, 2017
9. Design Review Committee Minutes, August 2, 2017
10. Design Review Committee Staff Report, December 7, 2016
11. Design Review Committee Minutes, December 7, 2016
12. Branch West Parking Utilization Study dated August, 22, 2017
13. City of Orange 2014 Housing Element Policy Action 7
Exhibits provided to the Planning Commission:
A. Submitted Plans and Exhibits labeled September 6, 2017
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1853-16, and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
c: Brad Perozzi
Branch West
5000 Birch Street, Suite 600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tom and Debra Stull
2951 E. La Palma
Anaheim, CA 92806
N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Zone Changes\ZC 1284-16 Branch West Apts\PC_StaffRpt_9_6_2017_REV_8_27_2017.doc