My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 37 - EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
12/07/2021 Regular
>
Item 37 - EIR No. 2020-03 and GPA No.2020-06 Santa Ana General Plan Update
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2024 8:57:39 AM
Creation date
8/17/2023 12:02:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
37
Date
12/7/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
591
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to City of Santa Ana Planning Commission <br />September 15, 2021 <br />Page 12 <br />parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park deficient and <br />environmental justice areas. Establish incentives for coordination between two or <br />more residential project (of any size) to create larger and/or more centralized <br />public park space, such as a housing density bonus for the provision of open space <br />as a public benefit and leveraging of Residential Development fees to partner with <br />developers to create public open space. <br />9. Clarification of the Open Space Element's Incentives for Parkland Creation <br />The new draft Open Space Element deletes an implementation action included in <br />the previous 2020 draft (Implementation Action OS- 1.16), which indicated that the City <br />should "[d]evelop an incentives program that encourages private development and public <br />agencies to provide park and recreation facilities beyond the minimum requirements." <br />Similarly, Implementation Action OS-1.7 now calls for the City to "[i]ncentivize <br />the creation of public parks that exceed City requirements, especially within park <br />deficient and environmental justice areas" and to "[establish incentives for coordination <br />between two or more residential projects (of any size) to create larger and/or more <br />centralized public park space, such as exploring housing density bonus options for the <br />provision of open space as a public benefit and leverag[ing] Residential Development <br />fee[s] to partner with developers to create public open space." The Open Space Element <br />should describe these incentives in greater detail. <br />As suggested by Action OS-1.7, the City could provide a density bonus to <br />development projects that exceed public parkland dedication requirements. This would be <br />similar to the density bonuses provided to projects containing below -market -rate units <br />under Government Code section 65915 (codified in Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter <br />41, Article XVI.I). The density bonus could be provided on a sliding scale: development <br />projects which exceed minimum parkland dedication by a greater amount would receive a <br />larger bonus. The size of the maximum density bonus for additional parkland dedication <br />should be no greater than the 25% maximum density bonus for below -market -rate units <br />under the City's existing density bonus ordinance. Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41- <br />1604(a). However, development projects which include below -market -rate units and <br />dedicate more parkland than required should be eligible to receive both the parkland <br />density bonus and the affordable housing density bonus. Use of one bonus should not <br />preclude or limit the use of the other. <br />In the previous draft of the Open Space Element, Implementation Action 1.15 <br />suggested a "100 percent reduction of onsite private and public open space requirements" <br />if a development dedicates public park areas that exceed the minimum dedication <br />requirement. 2020 Draft Open Space Element at 16. The City should consider a revised <br />version of this incentive: reductions of onsite open space should reflect the amount by <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.