CORRESPONDENCE- 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Salas, Diana From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:11 PM To: eComment; Pulido, Miguel; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Iglesias, Cecilia; Bacerra Phil; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose Cc: Gomez, Daisy, Carvalho, Sonia R. Subject: Re 4-21-20 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 75A One Broadway Plaza- Adoption of Resolution for Addendum to Certified EIR, General Plan, and Zoning Amendment Ordinance for the One Broadway Plaza Mixed -Use Tower at 1109 North Broadway Greetings Mayor and Council Members, I am writing to you as an individual Santa Ana resident and constituent about One Broadway Plaza (OBP) Business Agenda Item 75(a). I urge the Council to: 1) *postpone your vote on the Applicant's requested ordinance amendments until City Staff renegotiates anew Development Agreement with the Applicant or; *vote to conditionally approve the requested ordinance amendments contingent on City Staff renegotiating a new Development Agreement with the Applicant. AND 2) explain to your constituents why you are now voting to amend certain provisions of the Specific Development No. 75 (SD-75) zone. In 2005, this zoning amendment required and received approval by a majority of Santa Ana voters via referendum at a special election to become effective. Before you vote to adopt the new ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2020- 02 to amend Specific Development No. 75 ( SD-75) zone, please explain why Council should not also send the new zoning amendment back to the voters for their approval. (1) the residents of Santa Ana. I urge the City to vigorously negotiate with the Developer on your constituents' behalf for th( best deal possible before giving final approval to the requested amendments. I appreciate the Planning Commission's recommendation of project approval conditions, the City Staff's presentation of the declaration of acknowledgement and acceptance of approval conditions, and Mr. Harrah's promises on a number of ways to improve the project to the benefit of the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods and the City. I encourage the City to now confirm these promises in a new Development Agreement before taking final action on the recommendations before you. 2) voters for their approval. ncil should not send the new recommended zoning amendment back to I recall and respect that this zoning amendment was approved as Measure A by 56% of the Santa Ana residents who voted in a referendum in a special election in 2005, and that the Fourth District Court of Appeal decided in 2011 that changes approved by the City to the OBP development agreement did not require that the City hold a new vote because it was found, at least in part, that the development agreement was not the subject of the original voter referendum. However, please help me understand the City's position when a majority of Santa Ana voters do approve a matter, such as the SD 75 zoning amendment, by referendum. Can that matter generally only be amended by the voters in another referendum? Or may the Council thereafter amend the voters' decision? Since Zoning Ordinance Amendment SD-75 had to be, and was, approved by a majority of the voters, on what basis does the City now believe it is appropriate to amend the zoning ordinance to 2020-02 by substituting a council vote for a new voter referendum? Another Santa Ana resident put this issue well when he stated in his "eComments" to the Council that one of the reasons he opposes the requested changes for OBP is that "(t)he Project was approved by voters to be a commercial building and not a high density residential and commercial mixed use building. This project should