CORRESPONDENCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

►14 JUSTIFICATION FOR A CONTIUANCE TO JANUARY OF 2020 Suspicious Activity (Smoke) • Multiple Recommendations of Denial by Planning Commission. • First reading of development approvals in November (before Thanksgiving). • Second reading of development approvals in December (before Christmas). • Debate between Councilmembers over 60, 45, 30, or 15 day continuance. • Public plea for law enforcement to investigate by Vice Mayor and further acknowledgement of dark money by Councilwoman Iglecias. • Second reading re -set 1 week prior to Christmas. • Ongoing investigation by Fair Political Practices Commission into dark money contributions in Santa Ana. • Requests for investigation by FBI and State Attorney being made by neighbors. • Significant and ongoing media interest. Known Outcomes of Yes Vote • Referendum drive. • Litigation (on -record acknowledgement by Councilmember of defects in CEQA review, substantial record evidence of inconsistency in General Plan and selected zoning, charter violations, Brown Act violations). • Significant waste of City resources (staff time/closed session meetings). • Recall Petitions. Flaws in Development Agreement/At least get a better deal. • Staff has not adequately addressed substantive legal and business issues associated with the development agreement. • Requests for a pedestrian bridge to accommodate museum parking onsite were responded to by staff asserting that the intersection meets the Code's minimum requirements. The developer has asked for a General Plan amendment and rezoning and is entitled to neither. The City can do better. • Agreement allows for sale or assignment to museum without requiring compliance with the Development Agreement (Section 2.5.5). • Development agreement still allows 2 years of extensions for $100,000 despite a projected revenue shortfall in excess of $900k. Buildout should be completed within two (2) years. Alternatively, developer should be required to reimburse City for projected loss of revenue after two years. • Project Art valued at 0.5%of construction cost. No City Council review, no metrics given. Response indicates this will be approved administratively during plan review. This is unacceptable. • Periodic review provision by City and developer's responsibility to implement CCRs still ambiguous, no metrics or meaningful criteria given, no financial penalties provided for non-compliance. • Development agreement still allows phased development at developer's discretion (could lead to a massive mound of dirt onsite) (Section 3.5). • City Attorney charged with "approving" CCRs (Section 3.6.2). This is a Charter violation. Section 703 of the Charter only allows for approval of the form of resolutions and ordinances and the form of bonds and contracts made by the City. The City Attorney does not have authority to approve third party CCRs. • Ambiguity on expenditure of park funds/controls/timing. Poor deal -developer can construct for less.