Planning Commission Agenda Item

Planning Commission Agenda Item TO: FROM: Chair Glasgow and Members of the Planning Commission 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

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.

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 public 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: Property Owner: Property Location: Existing General Plan Land Use Element designation: Existing Zoning Classification: Old Towne: Specific Plan/PC: Site Size: Circulation: Brad Perozzi, Branch West Tom and Debra Stull 1725 West Katella Avenue Urban Mixed Use (UMIX) 1.5-3.0 FAR; 30-60 du/acre Commercial Recreation (CR) Not Applicable Not Applicable 1.1 acres 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

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. Existing conditions: Surrounding land uses and Zoning: The Santa Ana River Trail Regional Commuter Bikeway is located 0.1 miles west of the project site. The 1.1-acre site is presently developed with a 2-story 19,680 sq. ft. commercial/light industrial building and associated parking. 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.

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 remain. 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 existing 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 the street

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 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. Proposed Code Section Project 66 4 17.19.120 Table 17.19.120, Note (i) Distance between structures (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.) 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

Fence height Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Landscaping Loading area (non-residential) Lot size (residential) 42 Required front yard or corner side yard 6 Residential units are built on top of the parking. Not Applicable. Planning Commission Staff Report Page 7 17.19.140 1.5-3.0 2.14 Table 17.19.120 Setbacks and open areas There UMU of the site not occupied zoning by buildings shall be provides for a landscaped. 0 setback from all property lines, however the site perimeter, pool courtyard, roof deck, and plaza space along the Katella frontage/ streetscape are landscaped. Not Applicable Not Applicable 40,000 sq. ft. 1.1 acre (47,916 sq. ft.) 17.19.160 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 12,867 sq. ft. 17.19.090 Open space, common 11,470 sq. ft. Up to 1/3 of the required usable open space. 9,410 sq. ft. 17.14.110 Open space, private 3,785 sq. ft. 2,867 sq. ft. Up to 25% of the total 3,457 sq. ft. Balconies 17.19.090.D

Page 8 open space requirement may be met by counting any private exterior open space areas (patios and balconies) provided within the project. range in size from 46 sq. ft. to 70 sq. ft. in area. Parking Setback, Front Patios and balconies must be a min. 40 sq. ft. in area to be counted toward private open space. 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 10 Max. Up to 20 where sidewalk oriented pedestrian amenities are provided. 161 spaces (including 19 guest parking spaces) This represents the 8% reduction being requested in the Administrative Adjustment. 3 to 20 (varies) to building face. Plaza space provided along frontage where setback exceeds 10. Table 17.34.060.A Table 17.19.120 Setback, Rear 0 33 Table 17.19.120 Setback, Side 0 6 8 on west side; 40 on east side. Setback, Street 10 Max. Not Side Up to 20 where Applicable sidewalk oriented pedestrian amenities are provided. Table 17.19.120 Table 17.19.120

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.

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 onand 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.

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 nonresidential 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

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 come 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 projectspecific 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 position, 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

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 not 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:

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.

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

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: Planning Commission Staff Report Page 16 A. Submitted Plans and Exhibits labeled 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