Commission approves 119,540‑sq‑ft affordable housing proposal at 1111 Okate Road after requiring ADA access plan

The Planning Commission voted to approve a 119,540‑square‑foot affordable multifamily development proposed by the Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority at 1111 Okate Road, subject to conditions and a requirement that the applicant secure a financial guarantee to ensure an accessible route to public transit.

Project basics: The Okate Apartments project proposes three buildings with a combined floor area of about 119,540 square feet on a 5.64‑acre site. The project includes two access drives off Okate Road, covered garages, visitor parking, a community building, playgrounds, rain gardens and landscaping. The developer proposes more than the code minimum for vehicle parking (142 provided, 130 required by code according to staff), and extensive bicycle parking (approximately 30 spaces shown in site documents). The site is vacant with two abandoned structures; utilities (water and sewer) are available at Okate.

Why access to transit was contentious: City staff, the applicant and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) discussed how the project would meet the city’s requirement for an accessible path of travel to a public transit stop. A bus stop serving the corridor sits within walking distance, but there is an 80‑foot gap in sidewalk on the north side of Okate that creates a barrier for wheelchairs and other mobility‑impaired users. Staff presented two technical options: (1) extend continuous sidewalk along the north side of Okate Road back to Cerritos (a longer, costlier option) or (2) build a shorter sidewalk and a mid‑block crossing to access the existing south‑side sidewalk and the bus stop (a lower‑cost alternative but one whose safe design would require engineering study and an approved crossing treatment). The MPO highlighted pedestrian safety tradeoffs and said a raised crossing could be suitable with engineering review.

Commission response and action: Commissioners recognized the ADA requirement and the applicant’s time pressures. The commission approved the development plan but attached a condition requiring the applicant to include, as part of its financial guarantee, funding to construct an ADA‑compliant path from the property to a transit boarding location; the applicant and city will jointly explore detailed alternatives (sidewalk extension, mid‑block crossing, or other engineered solutions) and may use bonding to ensure the work is completed if adjacent property negotiations do not succeed.

Public testimony and applicant comment: The applicant stressed the project’s importance as a 100% affordable family housing development near services and transit. A nearby property owner and business representative (Capital Scrap Metals) urged caution about density and adjacency to industrial uses; the applicant offered to work on buffering and design to mitigate impacts. Neighbors requested coordination on irrigation and traffic during driveway construction; staff and the developer said they will work with Public Works and the neighborhood.

Next steps: With the commission’s approval, the applicant will proceed to final engineering and permitting. Staff said the condition requiring a financial guarantee and continued coordination with MPO and Public Works will be documented in permit requirements so the accessible route is constructed or bonded before final plat/recordation as agreed by the commission.

Evidence in the record: Staff presentation covered site layout, utilities and two options for ADA access; the applicant provided a cost estimate and requested flexibility given the project’s affordable‑housing finance constraints.