CORRESPONDENCE- 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have to be newly approved by the Santa Ana voters to allow for such a substantial change to this voter approved project." (emphasis added, emk). (2) If you do not believe this is the case, please let me know why. Conclusion: The Council is being asked to approve the OBP amendments without benefit of a current written and signed development agreement. Please take the opportunity to renegotiate the best possible agreement with the Developer to the benefit of your constituents before making a final decision on the matters before you now. The Council is also being asked to make major changes in a zoning amendment approved by 56% of the voters in a 2005 Citywide referendum on Measure A without sending the significantly revised zoning amendment back to the voters. Please explain your reasons and authority to do so. 1 applaud the great effort by our City Staff, Planning Commission, and Council to continue to do the City's important business on behalf of Santa Ana's residents during this difficult time. My sincere thanks for your tremendous effort in conducting the business of our City under very difficult circumstances. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Respectfully, Mrs. Ellen Koldewey/emk Santa Ana CA 92706 (1) The California Courts have already decided that changes approved by the City to the OBP development agreement did not require that the City hold anew vote, at least in part, because the development agreement was not the subject of the original voter referendum. However, the current proposed amendment is for zoning changes which do appear to have been the subject of the 2005 voter referendum. This may present a different issue. As the local press reported, "(p)lans for the development have come before voters, and also been litigated in court. Santa Ana voters approved (Mr.) Harrah's proposal for the tower in a ballot measure in 2005. In a lawsuit [lied In 2010, a group calling Itself Coalition for Accountable Government Ethics, or CAGE, demanded a new public vote on the One Broadway Plaza project after the City Councii removed a requirement that (Mr.) Harrah lease at least half the space In the tower before construction could begin. A Superior Court judge ruled that the city must seek voter approval of changes to a developer agreement between the city and (Mr.) Harrah. But the 4th District Court of Appeal (in 2011 emk) ruled that the 2005 vote only concerned zoning changes to the One Broadway Plaza site at Tenth and Broadway, and not the development agreement. The appellate court struck down the order that the city hold anew referendum." (See "Developer plans 37- story tower construction," BUSINESS Section, Orange County Register, by Ron Gonzalez, his •//www.ocreRister.com/2012/12/O5/develo per-plans-37- storv-tower-construction retrieved 4-21-2020. "The development agreement was not part of the vote, it was not placed to the voters, it was simply the rezoning," said Assistant City Attorney Jose Sandoval." See "Judge Noncommittal on Timing of One Broadway Ruling," May 16, 2011 by Adam Elmahrek, Voice of OC, https://voiceofoc.org/2011/OS/iudge-noncommittal-on-timing- of-one-broadwav-ruling/ "In its 3-0 decision, the appellate court agreed with the city's contention that residents were voting only to approve a zoning ordinance, not the development agreement..." "They [appellate court justices] found that the referendum did not involve the provision for the building being 50 percent pre -leased before they [Harrah] could start construction," said interim City Attorney Joe Straka." (See "Appellate Court Reverses One Broadway Plaza Decision" December 5, 2011, https•//voiceofoc org/2011/12/appellate-court-reverses-one-broadwav-plaza-decision/ and "State Supreme Court Rejects One Broadway Plaza Case," February 23, 2012, https•//voiceofoc orgl2012/02/state-supreme-court-rejects-one-broadwav-plaza- case Voice of OC, by Adam Elmahrek, (emphasis added, emk) (retrieved April 21, 20201 RI S.Adler eComments to Council Members (parksantiagoinfoQgmail. com Thursday, April 16, 2020 5: 41 PM) eComment Opposition to the Approval of One Broadway Plaza, Council Meeting 4-21-20 (Correspondence) . 2161,