HomeMy WebLinkAbout FULL PACKET_2005-04-04
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCil USE ONLY:
APRIL 04, 2005
TITLE:
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE
SANTA ANA RIVER TASK FORCE
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
~-~~
CITY A~
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the appointment of 21 individuals to serve as the Santa Ana River
Task Force to prepare a report on habitat restoration and recreational
opportunities at the river.
DISCUSSION
On November 15, 2004 the City Council approved the formation of the Santa
Ana River Task Force to study the possibility of restoring the natural
habitat environment and providing recreational opportunities at the river.
In January, the Park Development, Recreation Programs, and Education
Partnerships Council Committee solicited membership applications from
various governmental organizations and community groups with an interest
in the development of the river.
In March, candidate applications were reviewed by the Committee.
A lists the individuals recommended by the Committee for
appointment by the City Council. Upon approval of the task force
a series of meetings will be scheduled to discuss and prepare a
report. This report will be presented to the Committee, the Board
and Recreation, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Exhibit
official
members,
plan and
of Parks
FISCAL IMPACT
impact associated with this action.
. (]\to
~
Gerar Mouet
Execut've Director
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency
138-1
EXHIBIT A
SANTA ANA RIVER TASK FORCE
PROPOSED COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MEMBER
ORGANIZATION
1. Stephen Hart
2. Stephanie Pacheco
3. Cal Rietzel
4. Jeannie Kim-Han
5. Mary Anne Skorpanich
6. Juan Gonzalez
7. Chandra J ohannesson
8. Maggie Brown
9. Frank Acosta
10. Barbara L. Muirhead
11. Steve Eaton
12. Julie Stroud
13. Dick Zembal
14. Hank Burton
15. Jim Donovan
River View Golf
Earth Resource Foundation
City of Garden Grove
CSUF/ALISA
County of Orange Watershed
Office ofO.C. Supervisor Lou Correa
Orange County Sanitation District
Representing Recreation and Parks Board
Concord N.A.
Edna Park N.A.
REI
Riverview N.A.
Orange County Water District
Windsor Village N.A.
National Park Service, River, Trails and
Conservation Assistance Program
Windsor Village N.A.
Windsor Village North N.A.
Santa Ana Planning Commission
WAL-MART
Windsor Village North N.A.
Strand Lighting, Inc.
16. Patricia Michel
17. Jocelyn P. Andrews
18. Alexander Nalle
19. Judd Guice
20. Jocelyn P. Andrews
21. GaryWood
138-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
v'
ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR
2005-2006 AND REALLOCATION
OF FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT FUNDS
/
t/ ..' /;72" :/.-
,<-;; //,;7 //
.' "L.....<-/ ,f '(~ ".. -"\.
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
-.....~~~--"
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Allocate $305,875 in FY 2005-2006 Emergency Shelter Grant funds as
recommended.
2. Reallocate $4,000 in FY 2004-2005 Emergency Shelter Grant funds as
recommended.
3. Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager
and the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with non-profit
agencies awarded funds.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Recommended that the City Council:
1. Allocate $305,875 in FY 2005-2006 Emergency Shelter Grant funds as
recommended.
2. Reallocate $4,000 In FY 2004-2005 Emergency Shelter Grant funds as
recommended.
3. Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager
and the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with non-profit
agencies awarded funds.
By a vote of 5:0 (Rodriguez and Stroud absent) at its Regular Meeting of
March 1, 2005.
20A-1
Allocation of FY 05-06 and
Reallocation of FY 04-05 ESG Funds
April 4, 2005
Page 2
DISCUSSION
In July 2005, the City of Santa Ana will be awarded $305,875 in Emergency
Shelter Grant (ESG) funds by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). These funds are made available to states, counties
and municipalities to support emergency shelter programs for the
homeless. Eligible uses include renovation of emergency shelter
facili ties, essential services to the homeless (e. g., food and health
care), and homeless prevention. A maximum of 30 percent of the total
grant may be used for essential services and 30 percent for homeless
prevention.
For the past 17 years, the Ci ty has actively participated in the ESG
program by providing over $3,349,000 to homeless service organizations.
In September 2004, a Request for Proposals was mailed to 53 non-profit
providers soliciting applications for FY 2005-2006 grant funding.
Seventeen service agencies responded with funding requests totaling
$570,828. Proposals predominately sought funds to offset program
administration, homeless prevention, maintenance and operating costs.
On January 12, 2005, an evaluation panel consisting of representatives
from the Community Redevelopment and Housing Commission, the Human
Relations Commission, staff member from Orange County's Housing and
Community Service Department conducted applicant interviews to rate and
rank the proposals using the following criteria: 1) community need, 2)
effective and efficient use of funds, 3) organizational qualifications
and 4) HUD requirements. Exhibi t 1 provides a list of the agencies
submitting proposals, the evaluation panel rating, grant amount for the
present year and the recommended funding for FY 2005-2006. A brief table
of information regarding each applicant is also provided (Exhibit 2).
Two of the recommended proposals will fund homeless prevention programs,
and ten will provide essential services and operations.
Twelve proposals are being recommended for funding as follows:
20A-2
Allocation of FY 05-06 and
Reallocation of FY 04-05 ESG Funds
April 4, 2005
Page 3
Casa Teresa
City of Santa Ana PRCSA
Council of Orange County Society of
Saint vincent DePaul
Laura's House
Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Mental Health Association of Orange County
Mercy House Center
Mercy House Joseph & Regina
Southwest Minority Economic Development
Association
Thomas House Temporary Shelters
WISE place
Women's Transitional Living Center
5% Admin.
Prior Year Unexpended
ESG Available
TOTAL
$ 5,000
20,000
9,581
15,000
10,000
35,000
35,000
45,000
25,000
15,000
50,000
30,000
15,294
4,000
$309,875
Five applications were rated so low that the evaluation panel did not
recommend funding.
Prior year funding in the amount of $4,000 was returned from Anaheim
Interfaith. The Board of Directors decided to decline the grant. Their
decision was based on the size of the grant that was awarded.
FISCAL IMPACT
HUD provides ESG funds to the City. Funds will be utilized for eligible
activities by non-profit homeless service agencies and the City. No
additional City funding is necessary; thus, the only fiscal impact on the
City is that of ongoing administration. Funds for subrecipients will be
available in the FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006 Emergency Shelter Grant
account (account no. 135-152-6931).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
patricia C. Whitaker
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
~ranci~co Gutierrez
Executlve Director
Finance & Management Services Agency
PCW/NTE/FH/mlr
H:\ACTIONS\2005 CC\AllocFY05-06&ReallocFY04-05ESGFunds 4-4-05.doc
20A-3
o
o
o~
lrl
~
o 0 0 0 QO
o 0 0 0 III
o~o~o 0";
lrl lrl O~ O~ ~
N ...... lrl (") ~
o
o
o
O~
N
o 0
o 0
O~ 0
lrl O~
...... ......
o 0 0
o 0 0
O~ O~ O~
lrl lrl lrl
(") (") <<:t
......
00
lrl
0\
."
." tI'T ." tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T
0'\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'\ QO
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lrl 0 0 00 ~
O~ O~ 0 00 0 O~ 0 O~ O~ O~ 0 O~ 0 r--- O~ O~ ...... QO
00 lrl O~ 00 0' lrl 0' lrl lrl lrl O~ lrl O~ \O~ lrl N O~ 0
r--
N N N N lrl ...... ...... (") <<:t r--- r--- N N r--- <<:t II'l
tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T ."
~
Z lrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....;l
~~. \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -<
\0 0 O~ 0 0 0 O~ O~ O~ 0 E--
<<:t ~ v5 lrl N~ 0' O~ N 00 ...... <<:t~ 0
~ Z. ...... (") ...... (") (") (") N \0 N E--
~8 0
<~~ -
'0
Z~< tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T tI'T 0)
'E
<~~ ro .
<~z :;:'0
ro :g
~~~. 0 00 0 0 00 <<:t <<:t ~ N 00 00 \0 00 C'1 ~ \0 (/) ...
0 ro2
..- Z>~ N 0'\ N (") ...... r--- 0'\ r--- N 00 \0 trl 0'\ \0 lrl lrl \0 :;: ~
- <U~ N N ...... N ...... ...... N N N N N ...... N N N N -:>-
:0 ro_
:c .L:: -
~ZO _ e
X o 0)
W ~~U '3 o :::l
O~~ 00'
- 0)
ro I:: '<:t (/)
~ Y7 .0
~~~ (I) 0 (/) :::l
.....
Cl - 0) (/)
ro
~~Z - '(3 '0'0
I:: :::l e
U~~ (I) 0 (3 ro
01)
~~ u 01) .5 L()
I:: < _0
QZ '.... 0)0
> C - eN
Q~ - I:: I:: ro--
~~ I:: ;:l (I) a.'<:t
U S 0
'(; 0 :;:0
l() I:: (/) U 0- O)N
Q >-< 0
Q ~ '+-< C (I) ~ I-< .~ ro
0 OJ) (I) 0) 0)
N I:: C I:: ~ >- 01) - cr
(I) I-< I::
;:l ;:l (I)
0 (I) 0 I-< Cl - (I) on; ro
'.... 0 ~ U
U u U ro I-< u .L:: (,)
0 '+-< I:: (I) .J:: ..... o!!2
- ..... OJ)
(I) (I) 0 ..... - S (/) :>-U-
OJ) (/) OJ) OJ) (I) I:: .0 e
(I) I:: (I) .J:: 0 ~ .....
~ < C I:: >-
S ro 0 ~ (/) I:: ~ '0 .-
I-< (/) I:: I-< .~ 0 0) (/)
0 U 0 ;:l 0 0<3 .J:: u I-< '0 ...
::r:: 0 - ~ 0 - e$
'+-< ~ '+-< '(3 JS 0- ro 0)-
U I-< .J:: I:: E~
0 ~ 01) 0 0 (I) 0- C S
-I:: (I) I-< 01) - (I) I-< 0 ECf)
01) ro C 01) I:: (I) 'C (I) .....
.~ (I) OJ) (I) 01) - E-< -
I:: I-< ~ - (I) < (I) 0 I:: 0 ..... O.L::
- < ::s:! ~ u 01) (,):!:
(I) '(3 -, >-< I:: (I) I::
'C :E I-< ..t:1 01) (I) ..t:1 (I) (I) - ~ 01) ro ~.{g
ro ro 0 (/) ;:l 01) 0 - 01) ;:l I-<
ro ..t:1 - ;:l (/) ~ 01) 01) ro (I) - 0)
01) U ~ U '+-< 0- 0 0 (I) ;:l ;:l 0 0 (,) E-< e.....
(I) ::r:: "'l::l 0 0 - ::r:: ro :::l e
01) 0 :E ::r:: ::r:: u 01) 01)
I-< .~ (/) -(I) '.... ::r:: ::r:: (I) i5: 0-
(I) '+-< - 01) - < (I) ~ 01) I:: E E
E-< '0 t:: '(3 "'l::l ro 01) ~ >. >. ro (I)
0 t: -ro - OJ) .J:: S ~ ro oij)
ro .J:: ~ I:: I:: I-< ro - u 2 I:: S
C ;:l I:: I-< - (/) - .L::
01) ~ '0 (I) (I) ;:l OJ) (I) (I) (I) ro ;:l 0 >-< 0 .s ro
ro 0 'C - ro (I) I-< 0 .J::
U I:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o e
U U U U ~ >-< .....:l .....:l 0 (/) E-< 1-<(
0 ..- N C") '<:t L() co r-- W
N C") '<:t L() co r-- co Q) I-
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- 0
z
20A-4
Cf)o:::~
WWo
o:::OJW
<( ~ ~
:2:ZW
:2: CJ)
:J
N Cf)
~~Z
.oJ,O
..cOI-
XO<(
WNU
....J
a..
a..
<(
<.9
Cf)
W
t-
CDCJ)
OWLL
,=>O
L() 0 ~o
o W o~
0:::
t-
CJ)
CDW
9=>
L()O
Ow
0:::
z
o
L()i=
0<(
'()
80
...J
...J
<(
oo~
Wt-CJ)
t-o:::ZCD
~w-9
,OJWL()
0::2:>0
0:::=>0:::
a..z~
'<t
o
C
::l
<:(,
. ,
CJ)""
o
::l
,
::2:Z
~g
(.9<(
O()
0:::0
a.....J
o
W
o
5>
o
0:::
a..
CJ)
W
()
5>
0:::
W
CJ)
W
::2:
<(
Z
>-
()
Z
W
(.9
<(
OJ
<(
t-
t-
<i!~~
t-"""<o
00 '
t-=>N
OJ
o
"!
cr>
co
o.
co
tI7
l!)
<0
<0.
'<t
tI7
'<t
N
N
..-
Q)
Ol
C
co
o
~
o
"!
co
~
o
l!)
<0
~
o
"':
cr>
~
o
o
'<t
~
o
l!)
<0
~
o
~
<0
..-
~
o
~
'<t
o
o
o
L!i
..-
tI7
~
z
o
l!)
..-
I"-
C"')
..-
.!:
U
co
Q)
OJ
co
C
::l
Ol
co
....J
....
Q)
-
ua;
:+J.!:
en(/)
Q) Q)
E u
o C
o Q)
'0
:>
....
Q)
.!a ~ u ~ en ro
5 13 ~ t5 .~ ~
~;gE~~;g
u C 0 C U C
000Q)00
....Ju 'O...Ju
:>
w
en
;:)
o
:I:
..J
~
W
I-
Z
<0
I"-
o
o
o
l!)
N
tI7
o
o
o.
o
N
tI7
o
o
co.
co
N
tI7
o
o
o
o
N
tI7
o
o
o
L!i
tI7
o
o
o
o
l!)
tI7
..-
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
.~ ,~ .~.~ ,~.~ en
a; a; a; a; a; a; Q)
en en en en en en U
5 5 5 5 Q) 5 5 .... 5.... 5 5 .... .~ ....
~8~~8~g828~~ 8~8~2 ~~ ~
.~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ :ffi ~ ~ ~.~ -t3 ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~en .~ ~ .~
Q)c....Q)c....encencQ) c c Ol - Q)Q)
Q)~enQ)~enQ) Q) ~Q)Q)~Q)~-~Ol~~uOlenu
:::. '(3 en _ '(3 en co '(3 ~'(3 en U .... '(3 U '(3 en co .!: c .!: c .:;
~EenQ)~EenQ)roE~Ero~co~~EenQ).5__~~Q)-~~~Q)-~_~~
.... -c :J - -c :J - ,- :J 0 :J :+J Ol U .; Ol :J - U ~ Ol co
2 Q) en Q) Q) en Q) g en ~ en c .... :5 en .... en a; .- __ en 0 .... en c
a;~~Q)'g~~Q)'g~~Q)'E~Q)'~~~~Q)'~~g~~co:J~~~~~
-t3Q)en'!:Q)en.!:~en2enQ)Q).!:enQ)en.!:~~UNQ)UQ)~
..-....-...---..-....-...----..-...------..-......-.....-....-.....-..---
co~uco~uco~ucouuco~uco~uco~u~co~u~
U
~
<C
en
w
0:::
w
I-
<C
en
<C
U
~
z
o
tI7
C"')
<0
o
o
<0
o
o
co
N
co
c
<(
co
c:
co
(/)
co
c
<(
co
-
c
co
(/)
U I- tj)
z<cen Z
~z w w
~<C3:0:::~
u..z<Ci=w..J
og!z;:)!zi:
Uenu<cgwu
-wwen uw
..J i= C) u.. I 0::: I-
O~zO<COl-w
i= <C <c >-1- ~ Z ~ :!:
<C:I:O:::_o:::wOO
UUOUD..enU:I:
N 2.(1A-~ '<t
~
z
o
o
o.
<0
..-
tI7
o
N
o
o
co
o
N
o
'<t
co
.!:
U
co
Q)
OJ
c
o
C,
C
:+J
C
:J
I
co
c
<(
co
-
c
CO
(/)
..JO:::
;:)w
<c1-
D....J
u..WW
OC~
u..>-I-D..
Ol-Z
..JWW:I:
_(3Uen
UOzC
~en>ffi
ou...:~
UOenu..
l!)
~
z
o
o
o
L!i
C"')
tI7
o
N
o
o
<0
'<t
N
co
C"')
<0
w
en
;:)
o
:I:
en
~
;:)
:s
l!)
o
o
N
--
co
~
N
..-
co
Cf)
W
0::
<x:
~
~
::J
('\J Cf)
;<;:::~z
.oJ,O
..eOf-
XO<x:
W('\Ju
...J
0..
0..
<x:
(9
Cf)
W
I-
(OU)
OWl!..
,:Jo
LOa
ow~
0:::
I-
(OU)
oW
,:J
LOa
Ow
0:::
z
o
LOi=
0<(
't)
C!;o
...J
...J
<(
~
U)
z~
,
WLO
>0
0:::
W
U)
00
WI-
to:::
WW
,CD
O~
O::::J
a..z
v
Z 0
0::: c
~~~1
:JO::: 0
ZW
U) :;
,
~z
C2~
(9<(
Ot)
0:::0
a.....J
o
W
o
:>
o
0:::
a..
U)
W
t)
:>
0:::
W
U)
W
~
<(
z
>-
t)
z
W
(9
<(
CD
<(
I-
I-
<t~~
1-'-'0)
00 .
I-:Jv
CD
o
o
o
l!'i
.....
fFt
o
o
o
N
,...
fFt
L{)
/'-.
o
co
c:
<(
co
c:
co
CI)
~
-.:!:
,...
,...
o
o
o
l!'i
C"')
fFt
o
o
o
ci
C"')
fFt
o
L{)
"<t
0)
C"')
"<t
co
c:
<(
co
-
c:
co
CI)
~
.....
M
.....
o
o
o
o
"<t
fFt
o
o
o.
o
C"')
fFt
o
o
0)
CD
co
co
co
c:
<(
co
-
c:
co
CI)
~
o
L{)
"<t
N
~
o
~
N
N
o
o
o
L{)
/'-.
fFt
o
o
o
o
/'-.
fFt
o
o
o
N
C"')
fFt
o
fFt
o
L{)
L{)
N
N
o
"<t
C"')
"<t
N
co
c:
<(
co
-
c:
co
CI)
co
en
Cll
::2:
co
-
en
o
()
N
~ ~ ~
Cll Cll Cll
> .c> Ol
~ 0 ~ go c:
Cll u c: o~ c:
BCll ~ c:~ ~ ~~ ~Ol en~
~g~~ B ~~~~ g~ a.~ .~~
~co-a. _~coen CO~...._Ol~...._~~
~~~~~~ ~~~co t02~,~gj~~~
~~~.c~; ~Cll~~~[~~E~~CllE-en
TI~ClloenCll .c_~~~Cllen"".cCllOU~Cll~C:
.u c: --.c c: - en Ol.c c: Ol~ ,_Q
co_~o~~~~5c:o~ coC: co-c:~~coc:_
_~coOl~-oen~Cll~ ug....Cll~c: U~c:~.u
.....cuenco.cE~c:o~EBcoCll~c:cocot
5 ~ ~ U - Cll U - ~ co ~.... ~ .~ ~;E E ~ ~ ~ E ~ [
-uCll~""~C:~E~~c:ga.E Cll.c-enCllE~~Cllmen
COOlCll....en .u oCll__a.C:en _~ '~c:
CO~CllOCllCllE-EoEgEcoco~~E~Cllco
~~uoE.c.cECll~Cll UCll~Ua.enClluE~
ro~u~ro~u~wro~u~wro~u~ro~u~
>-
I- >-
W I-
o Z
o :J
V) 0
C 0
<( W
...J C)
<( Z
ffiu.~
...Joo
0)
J:
I-
...Jz
<(ow
w_",
J:I-'-'
...J~Z>-
<(0<(1-
l-oO:::z
zV)O:J
WV)u.o
:::!!:<(oo
21tM.-6
w
V)
:J
o
J:
-- --<(
V) V)ZI-
W...JO:::w w...JO:::wC)V)
V)<(WV) V)<( w<(
:Jzl-:J :Jz!zo::oJ:
ooZo OOWolSOI-
J:i=~J:o::J:i=oJ:w<(ffi
>-Ci)C)>-w>-Ci)C)D..C)~1-
~z~~!z~z~w~wm
w~>www~>~O:::I-J:
:::!!:1-::::i:::!!:O:::!!:I-::::i..,o~V)
.....
.....
L{)
o
o
N
--
co
N
--
N
.....
N
.....
C"')
,...
.....
co(/)
OWLL
,::::lO
l!)O
OW~
0::
.....
co(/)
oW
,::::l
l!)O
Ow
0::
z
o
l!)i=
0<(
'0
;go
-'
-'
<(
oO~
W.....(/)
bffi~~
WCOwu',
a~>o
0::::::l0::
a.z~
(f)
W
0:::
<(
~
~
::::J
C'\.I (f)
;o;:gsz
..ClJ,O
..col-
xo<(
WC'\.Iu
-l
a..
a..
<(
c.9
(f)
W
Z
0::-
Wo
COw
~>
::::l0::
zw
(/)
"<t
o
C
:J
~;
(/)('1)
o
:J
,
~z
~~
(9<(
00
0::0
0.-'
o
W
o
:>
o
0::
a.
(/)
W
o
:>
0::
W
(/)
W
~
<(
z
>-
o
z
W
(9
<(
co
~
.....
-'W~
~g~
O::::lCO
.....co
~
o
"!
CO
o
I.!')
f"-
eD
N
ffi
o
o
O.
I.!')
N
ffi
o
o
O.
to
N
ffi
o
ffi
o
o
"'<t
I.!')
C")
N
N
"'<t
C")
co
c
<(
CO
-
C
CO
c/)
CJ.)
>
e
<.9
c
CJ.)
E
CO
<.9
~
o
I.!')
C")
N
~
o
..-
C")
..-
o
o
O.
N
f"-
ffi
0)
CO
..-
o
"'<t
ffi
o
o
O.
..-
to
ffi
o
o
O.
"'<t
N
ffi
..-
N
I.!')
"'<t
N
..-
..-
N
o
N
CO
C
<(
CO
-
C
CO
c/)
....
CJ.)
-
uQ3
-- .c
tic/)
CJ.) CJ.)
E u
o c
o CJ.)
"0
:>
C")
.!a Cii
:;:::
c c
o CJ.)
:;:::-0
co~
u c
o 0
....J()
0> ~ 0l'E
c c c CJ.)
CJ.) CJ.) 'c E
:fl Q3 '(3 u 'co ro
u:g !E ~ ~CJ.)
.~ g ~ i1l 'E....]i li; 'E 0, ~
CJ.) u ~ ..!- oo CJ.) Jg oo ~ CJ.) .!: ~
oo>.- Q3~ECJ.)~ .cEQ3::J
.... ~ g .~ .... oo oo ~ ~ - 0> oo ~ :g -al
CJ.) li; .~ ~ _CJ.) Bc ~ CO Cii a3 ,!: 0> >. CO ::J '" CJ.)
--u~- ~c ES~uco~....
~~!EOl~g~~~>.~Q3a3~~~~
oo .c ::Joo ,!: oo :!::s2 :!: 0 u oo 0> CJ.) _ .c::
--- oo--oo CJ.)OO --C....CJ.)CJ.)oo
~Cii..!-::J-ocoo c~-o::JCJ.)EooffiDCO
s~~~~~~~~~~8CJ.)~ui1l~
ro~u~ro~u~ro~u~ro~u~~
>-
l-
e::
o
Z w
:!E I- en
I- ffi~:J>-
~o:;:i=~C::
3::!E~~en~ffi
:I:O....Jo<t:OI-
I-ZwO:;:a......J
:JO>eno:;:w
Oowen:I:W:I:
enwc<t:l-l-en
~n4_ ,.
w
o
<t:
...I
a..
w
en
3E
>-
o
z:;:
~~
...Ic::ffie>
<t:W:;:O
zl-wC::
OZ a..
en-W>-c::
z!:::O<t:w
w~e>q~
~<t:~~w
:>C::_I():I:
>I-....J'l:ten
I.!')
o
o
N
--
CO
N
--
N
..-
to
..-
f"-
..-
20A-8
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
2005 METROPOLITAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE SYSTEM GRANT
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
~~>>- ~
. CITY MA GER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager, and Fire Chief to submit a
grant application to the State of California, Office of Emergency Services
for the fiscal year 2005 Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant funding
program.
DISCUSSION
For the past few years the Santa Ana Fire Department has participated in
the Metropolitan Medical Response System Program (MMRS). In 2005 this
grant was moved under the Department of Homeland Security, Office of
Domestic Preparedness, Urban Areas Security Initiative umbrella in an
attempt to ease the application process. The MMRS Grant allows local
government agencies to be prepared to manage the medical, public health,
population protection and environmental health impacts of various types of
emergency situations. The grant focuses on two maj or areas "capability"
and "sustainment." These two focuses address the City's preparedness for
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) incidents
and the City's plan for pharmaceutical and equipment cache management, and
training exercises.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is n
al impact associated with this action.
21A-1
Iss:032905
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-039
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND
THE FIRE CHIEF TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES FOR THE FY2005 METROPOLITAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE SYSTEM GRANT PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby, finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. The California Office of Homeland Security is responsible for
implementing the United States Department of Homeland Security, Office
of Domestic Preparedness Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant
Program (MMRS).
B. MMRS provides funds to local emergency first responders to develop or
enhance existing emergency preparedness systems to effectively respond
to a public health crisis.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby authorizes and directs
the City Manager and the Fire Chief to submit a grant application to the California Office
of Emergency Services, Office of Homeland Security for the fiscal year 2005
Metropolitan Medical Response System Grant funding program.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby authorizes and directs
the City Manager and/or the Fire Chief to execute and submit all documents and take
any necessary action, for and on behalf of the City of Santa Ana, a public entity
established under the laws of the State of California, for the purpose of obtaining federal
financial assistance provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security and
subgranted through the State of California.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
Resolution 2005-039
Page 1 of 2
21A-2
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Laura S. Sheedy
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005-039 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution 2005-039
Page 2 of 2
21A-3
21A-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
BODY ARMOR VESTS
(SPEC. NO. 02-006)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
'D As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
if
..; /22"'--
{ / .
r/7ii-(/~/ ,'j l.t~__ --
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contract with Galls/Uniform Center, a division of Long Beach
Uniform Co., Inc., for body armor vests for a one-year period in an
annual amount not to exceed $47,051.
DISCUSSION
Police officers are required to wear body armor vests while performing
field job duties for protection and safety. The Police Department
requires replacement of a vest prior to the expiration of its warranty
period. A total of 80 vests will have warranties expire in the near
future and will require that they be replaced.
On April 1, 2002, the City Council awarded a contract to Galls/Uniform
Center, a division of Long Beach Uniform Co., Inc. for a three-year
period. The general requirements and specifications of the invitation
for bid included options for two one-year renewals based upon mutual
agreement. The vendor has performed satisfactorily during the past
contract period and has agreed to renew the contract without an
increase in pricing. Staff recommends the first renewal of the
contract.
22A-1
CS 383
Contract Renewal for Body Armor
Vests (Spec. No. 02-006)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Police Department Property & Facilities
Operating Materials and Supplies account (account no. 11-343-6391).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
."- ~'- . . 'l. \J~'
Paul M. Walters
Chief of Police
~~.
lJtL Francisco Guti rrez
r- Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
PMW/TO/02-006-/R.7:li
22A-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~t~~
--'v '\f'
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES
(SPEC. NO. 02-135)
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
~
/) /
U //fQt2
,/ ,_ I .' ~
.t.. fl,./' (t'.....-
cfTy MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contract with Environmental Recovery Services, Inc. for
hazardous waste disposal services for a one-year period, in an annual
amount not to exceed $40,000.
DISCUSSION
A variety of City operations involve the use of paint, fuel, and other
solvents which generate hazardous waste materials. These hazardous waste
materials are temporarily stored at the Corporate Yard and scheduled for
pick-up by an authorized hazardous waste disposal service. Compliance
with Environmental Protection Agency regulations requires that an
authorized hazardous waste disposal service be used to transport the
hazardous materials to a lawfully authorized disposal, treatment, or
storage facility within 90 days.
On December 2, 2002, the City Council awarded a contract to
Environmental Recovery Services, Inc. for a two-year period with
provision for two one-year renewals. The vendor has performed
satisfactorily during the past contract period, has agreed to renew the
contract, and requests only a minimal price increase. Staff recommends
the first renewal of the contract.
228-1
CS 383
Contract Renewal for Hazardous Waste
Disposal Services (Spec. No. 02-0135)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Roadway Marking, Parking Meter Fund, and
Building Maintenance Other Contractual Services accounts (account nos.
11-623-6291, 027-013-6291, and 73-105-6291) .
d~~,
\J\t- Francisco Gutierrez
1-- Executive Director
Finance & Management Services Agency
FG/WO/02-135-R.2:li
228-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
PLANT MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE
(SPEC. NO. 02-150)
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For ___
'"
, . /
I ) //
f/~; V;~Z._-----
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contract with All Green Company for a one-year period in an
annual amount not to exceed $23,369 and an additional $2,000 for an
annual blanket order contract.
DISCUSSION
The City
decorating
areas with
accessories
replacement
provides an aesthetic
the different agencies
indoor plants. The
and plant maintenance
of the plants.
environment in the workplace by
in various offices and reception
All Green Company provides plants,
service to the City for the life or
On February 18, 2003, the City Council awarded a contract to All Green
Company, for a one-year period with provision for two one-year
renewals. The vendor has performed satisfactorily during the past
contract period and has agreed to renew the contract without an
increase in pricing. Staff recommends the final renewal of the
contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are budgeted and available in the various departmental Other
Contractual Services account (object code 6291).
~~'
Ulh- Francisco Gutie rez
r Executive Director
Finance and Management Services Agency
FG/WO/02-150R2.2:li
22C-1
CS 383
22C-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
AUTOMOTIVE BRAKE PARTS
(SPEC. NO. 03-010)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
/
CONTINUED TO
if
/ /t4?
IJ <'-:.. // 'f/C::e<:~~
V ~. r,~,. ~ . Ie
. CITY MANAGER
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contracts for the purchase of automotive brake parts and non-
stock items for a one-year period in the following not-to-exceed annual
amounts:
Vendor:
Location:
Amount:
Long Beach Automotive Distributors, Inc. Anaheim
d/b/a Pacific Supply
$45,000
Orange County Auto Parts
Santa Ana
$10,000
Hicks Specialtys
d/b/a Truck Parts Supply
Orange
$10,000
Bob Stall Chevrolet
La Mesa
$10,000
Auto P & M, Inc.
d/b/a J & B Auto Parts
Orange
$10,000
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Maintenance Division of the Finance and Management Services
Agency is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the City's
fleet. Police vehicles operate for upward of 12 hours daily, with each
unit driven 50-75,000 miles during a three-year period. Brake parts
are regularly replaced as part of Fleet's preventive maintenance
program. Approximately 150 brake parts are maintained in inventory for
immediate access, and non-stock brake parts are ordered as needed.
220-1
CS 383
Contract Renewal for Automotive
Brake Parts (Spec. No. 03-010)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
On April 7, 2003, the City Council awarded contracts for a two-year
period, with provision for three one-year renewals. The vendors have
performed satisfactorily during the past contract period and have
agreed to renew the contracts without an increase in pricing. Staff
recommends the first renewal of the contracts.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are budgeted and available in the Equipment Maintenance Operating
Materials and Supplies account (account no. 75-111-6391).
(L~~'~'
~ Executive Director
Finance and Management Services Agency
FG/BP/03-010-R.2:li
220-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
"'~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
AUTOMOTIVE FILTERS,
HOSES, AND BELTS
(SPEC. NO. 03-012)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
f
;"; ~72'~
U"d-//I.J C4--
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contracts for the purchase of automotive filters, hoses and
belts, and non-stock items for a one-year period in the following not-
to-exceed annual amounts:
Vendor:
Location:
Amount:
Truck & Auto Supply, Inc.
d/b/a TruParCo
Anaheim
$35,000
Orange County Auto Parts
Santa Ana
$15,000
Auto P & M, Inc.
d/b/a J & B Auto Parts
Orange
$15,000
The Parts House, Inc.
d/b/a Orange Auto Parts
Orange
$12,000
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Maintenance Division of the Finance and Management Services
Agency maintains a fleet of over 800 rolling stock vehicles and 150
i terns of hand-operated equipment in the Corporate Yard facility. A
parts inventory of over 1,300 fast moving parts is carried covering 96
different manufacturers. Non-stock items are ordered on an as-needed
basis. Quality levels are established for automotive filter products,
hoses, and belts. The parts are purchased by Fleet Maintenance for use
on all City vehicles.
22E-1
CS 383
Contract Renewal for Automotive Filters,
Hoses and Belts (Spec. No. 03-012)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
On April 7, 2003, the City Council awarded contracts for a two-year
period, with provision for three one-year renewals. The vendors have
performed satisfactorily during the past contract period and have
agreed to renew the contracts without an increase in pricing. Staff
recommends the first renewal of the contracts.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are budgeted and available in the Equipment Maintenance Operating
Materials and Supplies account (account no. 75-111-6391).
~~_~L .
~FranCisc:~t~
~~ Executive Director
Finance and Management Services Agency
FG/BP/03-012-R.2:li
22E-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES
(SPEC. NO. 03-014)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
,~
//~'
I / /
IYd,. - .,~
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contracts for
automotive batteries for
exceed annual amounts:
the purchase of
a one-year period
inventoried and non-stock
in the following not-to-
Vendor:
Location:
Amount:
Battery Systems, LLC
Powertron Battery Co.
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
$30,000
$15,000
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Maintenance Division of the Finance and Management Services
Agency is responsible for the service and repair of the City's fleet.
Periodically, batteries must be replaced. The contract will allow for
vehicle and motorcycle battery replacement for inventoried and non-
stock automotive batteries on an as-needed basis.
On April 7, 2003, the City Council awarded contracts for a two-year
period, with provision for three one-year renewals. The vendors have
performed satisfactorily during the past contract period and have
agreed to renew the contracts without an increase in pricing. Staff
recommends the first renewal of the contracts.
22F-1
CS J83
~
Contract Renewal for Automotive Batteries
(Spec. No. 03-014)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are budgeted and available in the Equipment Maintenance Operating
Materials and Supplies account (account no. 75-111-6391).
~
t' \
r .
;~anCiSCO Gutie rez
Executive Director
Finance and Management
Services Agency
FG/BP/03-014.2:li
22F-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
'-'~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR
MISCELLANEOUS AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
(SPEC. NO. 03-026)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
)./
1
1/~
' ..~.. ~. i <,,_
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
--
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Renew the contracts for the purchase of miscellaneous automotive parts
and non-stock items for a one-year period in the following not-to-
exceed annual amounts:
Vendor:
Location:
Amount:
Orange County Auto Parts
Factory Motor Parts
Bob Stall Chevrolet
Adamson Industries
Power Chevrolet Irvine
The Truck Lighthouse
Truck & Auto Supply Inc.
d/b/a TruParCo
Santa Ana
Anaheim
La Mesa
Costa Mesa
Irvine
Santa Fe Springs
Anaheim
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Maintenance Division of the Finance and Management Services
Agency regularly replaces miscellaneous automotive parts as part of the
preventati ve maintenance program for City vehicles. The parts are
purchased and inventoried at the City's Corporate Yard by Fleet
Maintenance personnel. Non-stock items are ordered on an as-needed
basis. The contracts allow for automotive parts replacement as
required.
22G-1
CS 383
r-
Contract Renewal for Miscellaneous
Automotive Parts (Spec. No. 03-026)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
On April 7, 2003, the City Council awarded contracts for a two-year
period, with provision for three one-year renewals. The vendors have
agreed to the first renewal option to the contracts. However, Adamson
Industries has requested a five percent increase in pricing as a result
of increased material costs. As the vendors have performed
satisfactorily during the past contract period, staff recommends the
first renewal of the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are budgeted and available in the Equipment Maintenance Operating
Materials and Supplies account (account no. 75-111-6391)
d~~,
Francisco Gutie ez
Executive Director
Finance and Management
Services Agency
FG/BP/03-026-R.2:li
22G-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
""~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR A
TRUCK WITH UTILITY BODY
(SPEC. NO. 04-152)
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
/Jd
U, . f/?a~
CONTINUED TO
t\:v
FILE NUMBER
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Amend the contract with Maurice J. Sopp and Son for the purchase of one
truck with utility body in the amount of $29,739.
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Maintenance Division's annual Equipment Replacement Program
identifies vehicles scheduled for replacement. Funding is monitored
through a depreciation schedule established with each department.
Various City departments utilize midsize pickup trucks with utility
bodies to perform routine business. The Public Works Agency's Water
and Sewer Services crews use trucks with utility bodies to secure and
transport tools and equipment to job sites. Due to age, mileage in
excess of 65,000 miles, and general condition, one 1996 Chevrolet truck
has been approved for replacement in the current fiscal year.
On February 7, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract to Maurice J.
Sopp and Son for the purchase of three trucks with utility bodies. The
vendor has agreed to extend the same terms and conditions and will
include a utility body modified to accommodate the sewer camera per our
specifications. Therefore, staff recommends amending the contract with
Maurice J. Sopp and Son.
22H-1
CS 383
~
Contract Amendment for a Truck with
Utility Body (Spec. No. 04-152)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Fleet Services Equipment Replacement
Machinery & Equipment account (account no. 76-145-6641).
~~'
Executive Director
Finance and Management Services Agency
FG/KM/04-152-A.2:li
22H-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR
MIDSIZE PICKUP TRUCKS
(SPEC. NO. 05-002)
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
~
(// /:/ /
Y~?L t/./j7;2--------
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Amend the contract to Don Kott Ford for the purchase of three new
midsize pickup trucks in the amount of $55,726.04.
DISCUSSION
The Fleet Maintenance Division's annual Equipment Replacement Program
identified vehicles scheduled for replacement. Funding is monitored
through a depreciation schedule established with each department.
The Police Department's Parking Control Division is responsible for
parking control services throughout the City. Staff utilizes pickup
trucks to accompany street sweepers, monitor meter-controlled areas,
and transport parking cones, barricades, and other parking control
equipment. Due to age, mileage and general condition, three pickup
trucks have been approved for replacement in the current fiscal year.
On February 22, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract to Don Kott
Ford for the purchase of two pickup trucks. The vendor has offered to
extend the same terms and conditions for additional pickup trucks.
Therefore, staff recommends amending the contract with Don Kott Ford.
221-1
CS 383
Contract Amendment for Midsize
Pickup Trucks (Spec No. 05-002)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Traffic Offender Program Grant Machinery and
Equipment account (account no. 165-336-6641).
"\
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
, / '\ i '
" " Ct v..( \l/ l ~C\
Paul M. Walters
Chief of Police
~~.
llih. Francisco Gutierrez
1-- Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
PMW/KM/05-002-A.7:li
221-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
..,~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
FLOOR BURNISHERS
(SPEC. NO. 05-025)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
( / ;::l
j/ /1"'/
l:~ti"" / J;2
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
..J
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to Gale Supply Company for the purchase of eight floor
burnishers in the amount of $6,805.49.
DISCUSSION
The Santa Ana Jail currently houses over 400 inmates in eight separate
modules. In order to comply with Federal and State regulations, the
modules must be adequately maintained. Module flooring and hallways
are cleaned by the inmates utilizing commercial grade burnishers on a
daily basis. The existing equipment is over eight years old and it is
more cost-effective to replace than repair it. The new equipment will
ensure the jail has adequate means to keep the module areas clean.
The notice inviting bids was advertised on February 23 & 25,
bids were solicited. A summary of the bid invitations
received is as follows:
2005, and
and bids
5 Invitations For Bid mailed
1 Invitation For Bid mailed to a Santa Ana vendor
4 Bids received
Bids were received and opened on March 7, 2005 (Exhibit 1). The bid
recei ved from Gale Supply Company is responsive to the specification.
The cost of the purchase when combined with previous purchases this
fiscal year from Gale Supply Company exceeds the $10,000 aggregate
limit and requires City Council approval.
22J-1
C~; 383
Contract Award for Floor Burnishers
(Spec. No. 05-025)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Inmate Welfare Fund, Operating Materials &
Supplies account (account no. 23-349-6391).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
: (. ~,.....' 'L \('
) " V"..)',
Paul M. Walters
Chief of Police
~~,
(fI-L Francisco Gut' errez
7 . Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
PMW/BP/05-025.7:li
22J-2
ABSTRACT OF BIDS
CONTRACT AWARD FOR FLOOR BURNISHERS (SPEC. 05-025)
Gale Waxie Zep
Supply Sanitary Kathco Mfg.
Vendor: Company Supply Products Company
Location: Los Angeles Los Angeles Commerce Corona
4 each
Model 1500F
Burnisher: $3,140.00 $3,250.04 $4,418.00 $ 7,170.36
4 each
Model 2000DC
Burnisher: $3,176.00 $3,318.20 $4,491.80 $ 7,309.76
Tax: $ 489.49 $ 509.04 $ 690.51 $ 1,194.61
Total Cost: $6,805.49 $7,077.28 $9,600.31 $15,674.73
EXHIBIT 1
22J-3
22J-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE
TANK REPAIRS
(SPEC. NO. 05-029)
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For___
~
'L
' './
" . / -'
l~c ,//;'2-
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to Pacific Systems Electric for underground fuel
storage tank repairs in an amount not to exceed $16,764.58.
DISCUSSION
The Fire Department utilizes various underground fuel storage tanks
that are annually inspected and certified. The unleaded gasoline
storage tanks at Fire Station No. 1 require new sensors on the leak
detection system. In addition, Fire Station No. 5 underground fuel
storage tanks require a Phase I Enhanced Vapor Recovery System
installed to comply with California Air Resources Board recent mandated
Executive Orders.
The notice inviting bids was advertised on March 2 and 4,
bids were solicited. A summary of the bid invitations
received is as follows:
2005,
and
and
bids
14 Invitations For Bid mailed
2 Invitations For Bid mailed to Santa Ana vendors
4 Bids received
Bids were received, opened on March 16, 2005 and evaluated (Exhibit 1).
The bid from Pacific Systems Electric is responsive to the
specifications and meets the City's requirements.
22K-1
CS 383
Contract Award for Underground Fuel Storage
Tank Repairs (Spec. No. 05-029)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available
account (account no.
in the Fire
11-327-6291) .
Maintenance
Other
Contract
Services
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~
~~ '
Francisco GU~
Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services
Agency
22K-2
ABSTRACT OF BIDS
CONTRACT AWARD UNDERGROUND FUEL
STORAGE TANK REPAIRS
(SPEC. 05-029)
Vendor
Pacific
Systems
Electric
Location
Murrieta
Terms
Net 30
Station 1
$ 7,211.76
Station 5
$ 4,552.82
TOTAL
$11,764.58
CONTINGENCY
5,000.00 *
GRAND TOTAL
$16,764.58
Wayne Perry
Inc.
California
Hazardous
Services
Buena Park
Garden Grove
Net 30
Net 30
$ 4,400.00
$17,320.00
$ 8,264.00
$13,600.00
$18,000.00
$25,584.00
* INCLUDES FUNDS FOR UNFORSEEN REPAIRS.
SUMMARY OF BID AWARD:
TOTAL AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF:
PACIFIC SYSTEMS ELECTRIC
$16,764.68
EXHIBIT 1
22K-3
Tait
Environmental
Systems
Orange
Net 30
$ 7,200.00
$19,953.00
$27,153.00
22K-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR
PARAMEDIC VANS
(SPEC. NO. 05-031)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
//~
U' ci.f2
CONTINUED TO
. ~l'.'
FILE NUMBER
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to American LaFrance of Los Angeles for the purchase
of two rescue ambulances in the amount of $343,817.32.
DISCUSSION
The Fire Department has adopted a comprehensive and systematic
replacement program for Fire Department emergency response vehicles.
The program requires that a frontline paramedic van be in-service for a
minimum of four years, after which it is placed into reserve status.
Due to age and mileage, two units have been identified and approved for
replacement. The new units will be equipped with the latest technical
equipment available, and with added working space to accommodate Medics
and patients. American LaFrance is quoting a delivery time of 270
calendar days.
On September 2, 2003, the City Council awarded a contract to American
LaFrance of Los Angeles for the purchase of two rescue ambulances.
American LaFrance of Los Angeles has agreed to extend the same terms
and conditions of the contract. A 2005 Freightliner commercial chassis
upgrade includes hydraulic engine hoists to assist paramedics in
loading 100-pound oxygen cylinders that are carried on each rescue
ambulance. The upgrade and the increase in the price in steel
necessitate a 4.85 percent price adjustment in the new ambulances.
22L-1
CS 383
Contract Award for Paramedic Vans
(Spec. No. 05-031)
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds will be budgeted and available in the
Communi ty Development Block Grant Capital
Equipment acc nt (account no. 135-149-6641).
fiscal
Projects
year 2005-2006
Machinery &
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~i
~ Francisco Guti rrez
r- Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services
'1.
Agency
22L-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
TITLE:
CONTRACT AWARD FOR A
FIRE PUMPER
(SPEC. NO. 05-032)
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
~.. .,
/ . / ~
I zkpj) i/L,
f
CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
'4>........
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Award a contract to American LaFrance of Los Angeles, for the purchase
of a fire pumper in the amount of $356,807.66
DISCUSSION
The Fire Department has adopted a comprehensive and systematic
replacement program for Fire Department emergency response vehicles.
The program is designed to replace outdated equipment in accordance
with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1500. The
standard recommends a limit of 15 years to frontline service units,
wi th a reserve status of five years. The standards are part of the
requirements for maintaining a recognized Class 1 Fire Department. Due
to age, one 1981 pumper meets the schedule for replacement. The
delivery time with American LaFrance of Los Angeles is at a ten-month
period.
On February 2, 2004, the City Council awarded a contract to American
LaFrance of Los Angeles for the purchase of a fire pumper. American
LaFrance of Los Angeles has agreed to extend the same terms and
condi tions of the contract; however, the vendor has requested a 1.46
percent price increase for the 2006 American LaFrance custom fire
pumper due to steel price increases.
22M-1
CS ]83
Contract Award for a Fire Pumper
(Spec. No. 05-032)
April 4, 2005
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds will be budgeted and available in the fiscal year 2005-2006
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Capital Projects Machinery and
Equipment account (account no. 135-149-6641).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
d,~'
I ~ Francisco Gut' rrez
~ - Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
22M-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
WITH VALLEY OAK SYSTEMS SOFTWARE
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
.UV
\
;/ /
(y", ( .J~2-
FILE NUMBER
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the
Clerk of the Council to execute a third amendment to the agreement with
Valley Oak Systems to specify upgrade parameters and additional services
for the City's Workers' Compensation and Liability claims programs.
DISCUSSION
The City has utilized the software services of Valley Oaks Systems since
1995 to manage its Workers' Compensation and Liability claims programs to
provide statutory benefits to injured employees. A second amendment to
the agreement, approved by Council on April 7, 2003, provided the cost
parameters to upgrade existing systems for compliance with new
regulations.
A third amendment, which specifies the upgrade parameters and additional
services to be performed, requires Council approval. The third amendment
does not add additional funds nor does it extend the term of the
agreement, which ends on July 7, 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
25A-1
CS 383
25A-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
D As Recommended
D As Amended
D Ordinance on 1 st Reading
D Ordinance on 2nd Reading
D Implementing Resolution
D Set Public Hearing For
AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY
PERSONNEL SERVICES
CONTINUED TO
\~;. -
I
----.
~~ .. /;72_
CITY MANAGER
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with PRG Insurance Staffing
to provide temporary personnel services for the Workers' Compensation
Division in an amount not to exceed $64,800.
DISCUSSION
The Workers' Compensation Division is responsible for the administration
of open claim files for injured city employees. Due to a number of
anticipated employee absences, the Division requires temporary staff with
specialized knowledge of the statutory provisions of the California Labor
Code for a period of nine months. Gi ven these circumstances, staff
surveyed six agencies, including those with existing temporary employment
agency contracts, to identify firms that could provide the required
services. After reviewing the service capabilities of these agencies,
staff identified PRG Insurance Staffing as the firm with the temporary
staffing personnel possessing the proper level of technical knowledge and
skills.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted funds are
Workers' Compensation,
178-6291) .
available in the Personnel Services account for
Other Contractual Services Account (account no. 82-
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
,. ...t.!:
/' "1 /' . ,/ ~/' 7
(.. // 7/ ~...qj/
Enrique;1'. Alva
Execut~e Director
Personnel Services Agency
\, ::I! /:~
\ .i....e./ -- V --
/'1 /J
(~~/U~<-</ r/ ~'fY~~ ~/-
~rancisco Gutierrez ,
Executive Director ~
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency
258-1
CS 383
258-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
AGREEMENT FOR COMPUTER AIDED
DISPATCH SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
L,
f:~ /
..... /..
!/;~2'~ER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the
Clerk of the Council to execute a one-year agreement with TriTech Software
Systems for the purchase of computer aided dispatch system maintenance
services in an amount not to exceed $97,251.
DISCUSSION
Since 1996, the Fire Department has utilized VisiCAD software from Tritech
Software Systems. This proprietary software enables the Fire Department to
maintain vehicle status and tracking to accurately dispatch the closest
uni ts to an emergency incident. Maintenance of the VisiCAD software is
necessary to ensure the systems reliability and effectiveness. The
agreement renewal would extend the software support services originally
included with the initial purchase. The maintenance agreement entitles the
Fire Department to twenty-four hour maintenance support.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Fire Department's Communication Services Other
Contractual Services account (11-322-6291).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
':\- \\\.\'>{\~ l-.\~" \\ 3:c ,
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance and Mqmt. Services Aqency
25C-1
25C-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
~
~
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 sl Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
AGREEMENT FOR GOVERNMENT
LIAISON SERVICE WITH U.S.
ADVOCACY
~~
CITY MA AGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare, and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with U.S. Advocacy in an
amount not to exceed $60,000.
DISCUSSION
U.S. Advocacy is a full-service firm specializing in all facets of
governmental relations. The company was founded in 1987, when Bruce
Young retired from the Legislature to enter the private sector.
Mr. Young has worked with the City of Santa Ana for the past six years.
In this legislative year, U.S. Advocacy will be responsible for
representing the City's interests in Sacramento including: strategic
direction in the protection of local government revenue and redevelopment
funds; securing funds for parks and recreational centers; advocating for
the extension of Santa Ana's enterprise zone; and assisting with the
City's efforts to keep the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana.
U.S. Advocacy will also help to secure state grants. Lastly, Mr. Young
will coordinate the City's efforts with our regional partners, including
the Transportation Corridor Agencies, the Orange County Transportation
Authori ty, the Orange County Water District, the League of California
Cities, and the California Big Ten cities organization.
250-1
Agreement with u.s. Advocacy
April 4, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the Other Contractual Services accounts from the
Public Works Administrative Services account (account no. 101-601-6291),
the Community Development South Main Administration account (account no.
550-935-6291), and the City Manager's Non-Departmental account (account
no . 11 - 0 12 - 62 91) .
~ Jam)~~(~
f\ Executive Director
. Public Works Agency
u
(;;K elPL:-
Patricia C. Whitaker
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
~~ ~t-~~) ~~J-'
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Mgmt. Services
,/
Agency f
250-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 sl Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES WITH
CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC.
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with CyberNet
Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $25,000 plus a contingency of $2,500
for a total project amount not to exceed $27,500 for construction
management services to install a video surveillance system at West
Reservoir.
DISCUSSION
The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) funded by the Federal
government provides for the installation of security systems at critical
city facilities. The City has received approval to install a video
surveillance system at the West Reservoir located at 4426 West First St.
The cost of installing this system will be paid for with UASI funds.
The City retained CyberNet Consulting, Inc. to design the video
surveillance system. The design is complete and bids are being solicited
for system development and installation. To insure that all technical
requirements of the system specifications are met, city staff will need
technical assistance during the installation process. As the design
consultant for this highly complex system, CyberNet Consulting Inc. is
best qualified to assist with system installation and start up. Due to
their familiarity with this highly complex and technical project, staff
recommends that CyberNet Consulting, Inc. be retained on a sole source
basis to provide these services.
25E-1
Agreement for Construction Management
Services with CyberNet Consulting
April 4, 2005
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are currently available in the UASI Fund (account no. 125-613-
6291) .
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
es G. Ross
ecutive Director
Public Works Agency
~(
~ ~C"\c~'C\t--'> '\:". (, 1 ;1 ~ "'-'''-- .
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director ~
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency ~ .
JGR/RB/RFCA04-04/AgreeforConstMgmtSrvcCyberNet.JGR
25E-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 sl Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES WITH METCALF & EDDY
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and
the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Metcalf & Eddy in
the amount of $152,513 plus a contingency of $15,000 for a total project
amount not to exceed $167,513 for design of the West Pump Station
Facilities Upgrade Project.
DISCUSSION
In October 2004, the City was awarded an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) federal grant for improvements to the City's West Pump Station
Facility, (Exhibit 1). The improvements will consist of constructing a
pump building, replacing the booster pumps, motors, and appurtenances,
and installing all new electrical equipment and instrumentation.
Requests for Proposal to prepare plans, specifications and cost estimates
were sent to six engineering firms . Five responses were received and
evaluated on technical merit by a four-member selection committee. Two
of the firms received passing scores of 70 or higher. Listed below are
the scores and proposed fees of these two firms.
FIRM
Metcalf & Eddy
Lee & Ro Inc.
SCORE
88
82
FEE
$152,513
$179,912
Staff recommends that Metcalf & Eddy be retained for this project. They
were the top ranked firm based on technical merit and submitted the
lowest cost proposal. Their proposal demonstrated that the firm has
extensive experience with similar projects, a good understanding of the
project goals and objectives, and a strong project team.
25F-1
Agreement for Engineering Services
With Metcalf & Eddy
April 4, 2005
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Federal EPA grant provides funding for 55% of the design and
construction costs. The City will be responsible for the remaining 45%.
Funds are available in the Water Enterprise Capital Construction Fund
(account no. 66-579-6635).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director I~
Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency;w
.-I
JGR/SW/RFCA04-04/AgreeforEngSrvcMetcalf&Eddy.JGR
25F-2
-' ,
J
4
x~~'\
()'-\s
()s0- (,~ L
(,t>-~ ~
22
.
WESH.lINSTER
22
WESTMINISTER AVE
....
""
>--
Vl
5:!
iil
>--
Vl
~
>
1ST
ST
El
tl
:;,
~
z
~ ~
5. =
~ iil
~ l PRO..J LOCATION
~ (WEST PUMP ST A liON ANO RESERVOIR)
z
McFADDEN AVE
PROJECT LOCATION
~
NTS
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 1
P\.E1JC IORKS ACO<<:V
City Council Title:
Agenda Date
April 4, 2005
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES WITH METCALF AND EDDY
25F-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
ACCEPT DONATION OF HORSE
TRAILER
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 sl Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
'i
.~.
{~,. /122~
ITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Authorize the Police Department to accept the donation of a new horse
trailer from the Santa Ana Elks Lodge.
DISCUSSION
The Police Department operates a Mounted Enforcement Detail unit comprised
of six officers. The volunteer unit is deployed for crowd management, high
visibility patrol, and for community relations at various events throughout
the City. The Mounted Unit is also deployed to events outside the City
upon requests for mutual aid from neighboring law enforcement agencies.
The Santa Ana Elks Lodge has donated a new horse trailer to the Mounted
Enforcement Detail. The horse trailer will be used to transport horses and
equipment to the various community events and special deployments.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
\,
J(\,~ vll
Paul M. Walters
Chief of Police
Police Department
29A-1
29A-2
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
th
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-03 TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL INTO
TWO PARCELS AND CREATE AN
INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
AT 3400-3500 WEST WARNER AVENUE -
GROVE INVESTMENT COMPANY, APPLICANT
,y L"."~l,z:..--~
C .lU
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Confirm the Zoning Administrator's action approving Tentative Parcel Map
No. 2005-03 as conditioned.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION
Adopted a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 as
conditioned at its March 9, 2005 meeting to allow the subdivision of an
existing parcel in the Light Industrial (Ml) zoning district into two
parcels and create an industrial condominium development at 3400-3500
West Warner Avenue. The Zoning Administrator made no changes to the
recommended conditions of approval outlined in the attached staff report
(Exhibi t A) .
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
St hen G. Hardi g
Executive Dire or
Planning & Building Agency
VC:rb
vc\reports\tpmOS-03.cc
31A-1
REQUEST FOR
Zoning Administrator Action
~
~
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE:
MARCH 9, 2005
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY GROVE INVESTMENT
COMPANY TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL
INTO TWO PARCELS AND CREATE AN INDUSTRIAL
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 3400-3500 WEST
WARNER AVENUE
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
o Applicant's Request
o Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
Prepared by Verny Carvaj al
~:':~ning Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 as
conditioned.
DISCUSSION
Request of Applicant
The applicant, Grove Investment Company, is requesting approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 to subdivide an 8.9-acre parcel into two
parcels at 3400-3500 West Warner Avenue and create an industrial
condominium development at 3400-3500 West Warner Avenue.
Property Description
The project site is currently an 8.9-acre development consisting of four
light industrial, office, manufacturing and commercial buildings with
limited retail uses. The project was approved per Conditional Use Permit
No. 89-16. The four buildings total 197,424 square feet with a total of
431 existing parking spaces. The property is located within the Light
Industrial (M1) zoning district with a corresponding General Plan land use
designation of Industrial (IND). The property is surrounded by industrial
uses to the north, south, east and west (Exhibits 1 and 2) .
Project Description
The applicant proposes to subdivide the 8.9-acre lot into two irregular
shaped parcels and to create 44 individual condominium units with common
interest and area surrounding the buildings. Parcell, the rectangular
EXHIBIT A
31A-2
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03
March 9, 2005
Page 2
parcel on the west, will be 95,600 square feet (2.2 acres) in size with
Parcel 2, the L-shaped parcel on the east, totaling 293,289 square feet
(6.7 acres) in size (Exhibit 3). A 50,400 square foot building will
stand alone on Parcel I, while one single-story and two two-story
buildings, which total 147,000 square feet, will continue to operate as
industrial, self-storage (with one management apartment), office and
manufacturing uses within the boundaries of Parcel 2. No new
construction or development is proposed on either parcel. The project
was previously approved under Tentative Parcel Map 2002-133, which has
since expired. The applicant is wishing to reinstate the approval and
add condominium ownership of the individual units.
Analysis of the Issues
The proposed subdivision creates two irregular parcels of 2.2 and 6.7
acres. The subdivision as proposed and conditioned conforms with the
California Subdivision Map Act as well as the City's commercial and
industrial development standards. The property is zoned Light Industrial
(Ml) which allows for manufacturing uses. The retail uses listed in the
approved conditional use permit allows commercial/retail and self-storage
businesses within the multi-tenant business park. Both the heavy
commercial activities and services allowed on-site continue to provide
direct support to the City's industrial base, and the retail and employee
services were deemed necessary yet incidental to the industrial area
designated in the General Plan at the time of the conditional use permit
approval.
The proposed subdivision will have no effect on the land uses as
prescribed by the General Plan, as the project will serve only to create
new property lines. The project will not alter the physical appearance of
the site or existing building square footage and is conditioned to
continue operating as an integrated development. It is a common lot type
development with ownership of the industrial units and common area
access, parking and landscaped areas. The site is 8.9 acres, a size
that accommodates the proposed uses and exceeds the 12,000 square feet
minimum required by the Light Industrial (Ml) zoning district. There
are no anticipated environmental or health impacts as a result of this
subdivision.
Based upon
project's
industrial
Parcel Map
the analysis of the project, attached findings of fact, and the
compatibility with the City's General Plan, commercial and
development standards, approval is recommended for Tentative
No. 2005-03 as conditioned (Exhibits 4 and 5) .
31A-3
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03
March 9, 2005
Page 3
CEQA Compliance
This proj ect was reviewed in accordance with the Guidelines for the
California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from
further review pursuant to Section 15315. This Class 15 exemption
allows minor land divisions into four or fewer parcels on properties
that meet applicable General Plan and zoning regulations. Categorical
Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-167 will be filed for this
project.
~
;;;-.
Verny Carvajal
Associate Planner
AICP
VC:JM
vc\reports\tpmOS-03.za
31A-4
City of Garden Grove
M1
M1
M1
M2
M1
Al
-B
C-SM
Cl
C1-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C4
C5
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
PARKING MODIFICATION
COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CENTRAL BUSINESS
CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
M1
I
\
" M1
'--
SEGERSTROM AV.
M1
o
~Rtb
I
I
CA R T.
M1
M1
M1
M1
R1
~
M1
>-'
U)
M1 ;:
w R4
;;
II: R1
~
R1
~
,
'('-
R'. RD
M1 M1
M1
M1
ADAMS ST
M1
M1
M1
/ ,
==:::::it....-.J.....~'-l.::::;:-=
~I R4
so-
46
M1
M1
M1
M1
M1
~
II II
11 JI."r-------__.....-....,
l!://~I ''....'....~
M1
v
ALTON All
II
A1
.,
1 ~396.36 ----1 I I .. R2-PRD I ,.---
R1
R2
R3
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
CR
GC
M1
M2
MO
o
P
PCD
PRD
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT CENTER
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
MILITARY OPERATIONS
OPEN SPACE
PROFESSIONAL
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
R4
RE
SD
SP
~
~.--~
PM 05-3
GROVE INVESTMENT
3400-3500 WEST WARNER AVENUE
A
cW'
AND BU LD
EXHIBIT 1
31A-5
1" = 1000 FEET
P LAN N
N G
N G
- = 500 FEET
AGE N C Y
1m
~~
WARNER
t-=
CJ)
.....
<l:
a:
C/)
~
t-=
CJ)
w
~
~
INDUS RIAL
.....
<l:
a:
.....
A
#('
<l:
i-
C/)
a:
:::>
C/)
:::>
a
~
a
~
I N D
S T R I A L
PM 05-3
GROVE INVESTMENT
3400-3500 WEST WARNER AVENUE
PLANNING
AND
BUILDING
AGE N C Y
EXHIBIT 2
31A-6
Gj j
r, ~
"oJ ",,"
,.... r ;;~
............. ~i .J '<
",,"J ~W 1/)..
Q.. C') ~~~ ~..
~ fl)W~a ~
!JJC\j lllM
~~~iii ~
~ i~li g
fij~ d~~ ~
f..:t'I ~~!~:f
...... ~~I~
~~ i=:
CI) :1
S; ~
~
~I~~ i:~ ;: ~2~ ~~~Ii,
~ It. ti~.~
,,' ,
'I" ." < ~
~,~~ ~" ~ ,.. ..~:,
.~ ~"H ~.~ S ~~~ ~~S..
:~ ~ fS ~ S~~ ~~.
__ i~ ~~ 8i~", ~~~ ~ i;~ i~~
Il ~,.:~ .". 0,." ."" ..a
i i~~~~ Ii ,- - .., ...
~ ~~.~i ~ ~. I i.
~ '~;~I ~,~~ 'i' ", 20
! Mh II'<~ 'g ~ ~H d~
, .
~~ ! ~l" i.
~t."3 ~ ~. 0
~d~!~ ,~ Ie. hi ~
0.. ~ tJ,-,,,, ~ . '0( ~ It .. ~ ..
l~. ~HI'~i .~~ ,'~ ~'i;; !
a~ <e'~f. ;~! ~~~ f!~ l
".~~ ~ ~., ~ t' "<' I .
g" .~ .d, ,,: ~~. ; i '
I. ,,'-001 \,. ..~ .
~~, .'.h_.~~ ", I'~ I. '
.....~ "'V1~~~~ ~;i; ;l... <l~ -
li!~ ~k~i~ .t\~ .!~,~ ~
:~2~ :liii~~~ !~~~ ;~i ~:; ~
,~lt lli"l.. !;,I ~=i ~" ,
~ b~. ~. '.d ,!., '.'. 'II ~
~ '" ~::i~i'; ~ ..:;. .. ~ ~.~"'il' It ~
.. ~ ~!l' ~d~~1 i~~l ~'~f ~!~~ i
., "."" ~~.g. o,~ ,I._ ','. _
H8> ; !'l~ ,"~L~.' .. !1;~ :~~. ~';i ~
"I" . ,H' ~,~, ~ ..1" :~~,~ ~
~~~~ i .~.! H~!l~ i <'!~ 'll~ 1st,
"~.Ii i ~ .~ '!~:h' ~ ~;,' e.~! 5!~i ~
,,! . ie.o '"~I.'" , . ~, c."~" .
cc.~~ ;: ~~<~ .,; ..', . ,po ,~.- ..~.~. S
"'~~ I ~ ~lS~8 .~~" ~~~~ ! il!!~i .~l~ ~i~ !
m.~ ~ ii~; s~Mh~ ~ !:~~ 1M mi l
i
~i
h
~.
~@e
~~!
~i ~~[
~i~ii~
1
~~ -I.
<~ ,<,.
'r -..'
~
~"
!~ .,
". ~I
;! i
m g! I
;'!..~ "i
~i I~ m ~I j
!!I~ i".I~ II~; II;~ ~
~I~~ iU ~1 ~
m:i:S~ i ~{~ : .
~~~t :i~. ~ i..
.'_ l. ~ .
h~t ~.~ . ~ !.!_____"-~ . ~,
;.~ ,w !.f9,;~
c!.' ~
JOT
~i -J" ~-~
~n~~~~
')..."',k1J -;:
sf~ S~i
'." 1~:)-r'i;
_l\-':.'(I..,~
}~-
k:., \Sl -;-
r: Q<I 'It"
,,~ : ............
::',' ~ c..\
li~i
I: F!~ i ii -. 1
~. ..ts.. ~~"- ~ ~: ~~
~ ~ ~ 0; . 0< ,~ I d 'r ~~
_. ~e l~ ;~ . ~. l~ ~. l~ H
l. l ~.:~ ~e .~ ~S ~ ~, ,.!:1 !,
~; ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~ is ~. ~. ~~ 't ~~ ~~
P;; ~~ :: ~~ ~* ~i; ~~ ~; ~! ~~ ~~ ~i!
t~ tl:3 t:: ~~ ~; 'e! ~:. ~'< ~:;! or;~... b:
~~ ~~. ~~ ~i ,I h ~l ~~. ~~ ~~ ~i n
5~ ~~ ~g ~~ ~~ ~r ;~ ~~: ~~i ~~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~! ~~ ~~ ~. 'g ~~ s~, ~g' ':1 ~~ ..
.. ., .. ~~ ~! ~. ~~ ;~~ M ~~ ~~ U
~: ~~ j: ~i ji ~i ~i ~~i ~i~ P ~i a
~~ ~r ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ii ~~g ii:~ ,~
I ~~ ~~ h'~ <~ ~~ ,~ ", <~~ ,~~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ;! ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~!~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~
,~ ,"~ ~'~ ~t ~g ~~ ~t ~~~ ~g3 a~ ;~~ ~~i
~ ~~ ~ ; ~~<:S ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~:' ;:;~sl :~ ~f~ ~~~
~ o~ 0 , ~eo .,- .,- le5 lh lei ~~ lei l5t
ae 6l 6l 8 @ is if) @J ~ @ 0
I :
~ n ~
g ~~ d
Sl@<lOf
8
~ !
<] "
d3~
,~ \ . j ~
~"~ :(~.(,:r.:
if, . tJ q Iii,:,>
_,_~,z)!.,j
~
~~
~~,,~"
"''''':l """..
(JHI i (JOt/ I
,"Hi: ,l.J; ,.-J I
.~ ~~:; ! i
."
,t,:-_u~,--- ~~'----7~~_u _L~':'I~
; Iii
4l I ,r:;r.."uP) I !__
~fJfi
- ---+
\"
-~
I
-~ !
_:~ !
:..--.-;, I
~~~ i
n_ ~~ i
r..: -'"':i........
," . ~:~
~~ .Ii
'"
~ - ',-..~
!U~l
<;i ' <, i
~~: ~ I
i:~ ~" I
~!~~.; .~
.~ -'..:~ i ~..I~
. JHI =--= i
- --; i
[]:EJ -- ':;.,.
't
~ DJHI ~
! ! i;
Cl
!'j
_JH1
-!l~
",'
N~
""
I-~
'.)
~~
>:;-~-~-----
",,~..r~~...~
:~ t"
1_ n_-l.~.i-"-'"
I
.~
t-. """'''-
- -_ r""M ,.",? PM 05-3
"""o--,r" "-'",. EX I I
,$ "",'9";::l6_:::>v'.,,..~;-..:. -.......,...~ri;.'" i-l....,,^ /
~S'3/Y1 o""r-",~'-?i-liC;~ n<:; --:--:-.'-,,-.-
-~-
-------< ~ I
t~b
~~.~ i
<J'-~ -'I
<l 5:~
v-~ -;~
J, ~
I .~
I
~ l0=' !
~~ ,~
LPJ - .~
tlJ i
~ ~ ,.k
--1 ~I~
--4 I
i j;1 I" I l----t ---+
J~J~i ! / -~!
.....,..,.~(..,I" ,'I"'((!'( ----r
~
n....A)
.~'"
~ i : -':: ; : i Iii _l :
.I.~'.""~.:,,,
~'''': - -- '~ / ~-=-
RV : .
~ l' I
~ ,4 I
" \ I
-~---- ---~~-f- --
~' 3
..
,l").I.)1',
-~
., I
\:l I
~ I
'" '" f
~ ~~ i
::, Cl.~ '
~ !
~r
~~
~~
~i
~
in
~
~
".-.---
'-:1:
--)
en
=
=
(',J
""J"
i ~
I
. . l!~i
:.::~" ~.;".
. ";~7 '<~.~
i ~i~~ ~i'"
I=~'o l:~~~
5~~~ NH'
'I,neE 'J\"'~
;~
,
~'Z
r7
~ ~
t: :l
~ ,,~
~:. ~~
ga
~"
~ ;1
i ::!
[0
-R ij
~ ~ {
, .
t- ~ I
I.} - ~
<( ~ D
~~ "3-
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03
March 9, 2005
Page 1 of 2
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements
are consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the
General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of
the General Plan and any applicable specific plans.
The proposed subdivision will have no effect on the land uses as
prescribed by the General Plan. The project will serve only to
create new property lines and will not alter the physical
appearance of the proj ect, as it is conditioned to continue
operating as an integrated development.
B.
The proposed proj ect , as
requirements of the zoning
applicable City ordinances.
conditioned, conforms
and subdivision codes,
to all applicable
as well as other
The proposed subdivision conforms to the
street frontage requirements, as well as
intent of the State of California
provisions.
minimum lot size
meets the letter
Subdivision Map
and
and
Act
C. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the proposed project.
The proposed subdivision is appropriately suited for the site
and the surrounding area. Per Conditional Use Permit No. 89-16,
the proj ect was approved for the existing commercial uses and
current floor area intensity. The tentative parcel map will not
effect the existing development, as the maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) threshold will continue to remain in effect.
D.
The design and improvements of the proposed proj ect
substantial environmental damage or substantially
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
will
and
not cause
avoidable
The project is currently developed with
industrial/commercial buildings, with no proposal for
construction. No fish or wildlife will be affected by
approval of this map.
four
new
the
PM 05-3
3fJt~lf
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03
March 9, 2005
Page 2 of 2
E. The design or improvements of the proposed proj ect will not cause
serious public health problems.
The proposed parcel map will subdivide an existing parcel within
an existing industrial/commercial business park and create 44
individual condominium units with common interest and area in
compliance with all development standards. Approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 will not yield in any
additional impacts upon public health in the area, as no new
development is proposed.
F. The design of improvements of the proposed project will not conflict
with easements necessary for public access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
Approval of the tentative parcel
obstructions or hindrances for access
easements. Each parcel will have
Warner Avenue.
map will not create
on Warner Avenue or other
independent access along
31A-9
MARCH 9, 2005
PAGE tOFt
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 is approved subject to compliance, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative
Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other
applicable regulations.
The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed
below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use
permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with
each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional
use permit.
A. Planning Division
1.
Comply with Development Review Committee comments
September 23, 2002 for Site Plan Review DP No. 04-062.
dated
2. Prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and
agreements for parking access, property maintenance, sewage,
public utilities and landscaping, reciprocal access easements
and agreements, emergency vehicle access, drainage, fire
hydrants and sprinkler systems.
3. The Final Parcel Map and CC&R's shall be recorded within six
months of approval of the Final map by the City Council.
4. Two copies of the recorded Final Parcel Map and CC&R's shall be
submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Department,
Building Division and Public Works Agency within 10 days of
recordation.
PM 05-3
~~~"tfO
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
MINUTES
March 9, 2005
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-03
10:30 A.M.
Kenneth Adams, Zoning Administrator, opened the public hearing at 10:37 a.m. in the City Hall
Ross Annex Conference Room 2004.
Also in attendance were: Robert Sundstrom, Applicant, Verny Carvajal, Case Planner, Karen
Haluza, Principal Planner and Martha Ramirez, Recording Secretary.
Verny Carvajal presented the staff report and recommendation for the property at 3400 West
Warner Avenue. The proposed subdivision creates two irregular parcels of 2.2 and 6.7 acres
with 44 individual condominium units. The project was previously approved under Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2002-133, which has since expired.
Mr. Sundstrom stated he reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval and is in agreement
with compliance.
Zoning Administrator motioned to adopt a resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-
03 as conditioned.
Adjourned: 10:40 a.m.
Martha Ramirez
Recording Secretary
31A-11
KO - 03/07/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-03 AS CONDITIONED FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3400 WEST WARNER AVENUE
(REVISION TO COUNTY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
2002-133)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds,
determines and declares as follows:
A. The Applicant is requesting approval of a tentative parcel map No. 2005-03
to subdivide an 8.9-acre parcel into two parcels at 3400-3500 West Warner
Avenue.
B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 came before the Zoning Administrator
of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public hearing March 9, 2005.
C. The Zoning Administrator determines that the following findings have been
established:
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and
improvements are consistent with the Low Density Residential land
use designation of the General Plan and are otherwise consistent
with all other elements of the General Plan and any applicable
specific plans.
The proposed subdivision will have no effect on the land
uses as prescribed by the General Plan. The project will
serve only to create new property lines and will not alter the
physical appearance of the project, as it is conditioned to
continue operating as an integrated development.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable
requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, as well as other
applicable City ordinances.
The proposed subdivision conforms to the minimum lot size
and street frontage requirements, as well as meets the letter
and intent of the State of California Subdivision Map Act
provisions.
31A-12
Resolution No. 2005-03
Page 1 of 3
3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed project.
The proposed subdivision is appropriately suited for the site
and the surrounding area. Per Conditional Use Permit No.
89-16, the project was approved for the existing commercial
uses and current floor area intensity. The tentative parcel
map will not effect the existing development, as the
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) threshold will continue to
remain in effect.
4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The project is currently developed with four
industrial/commercial buildings, with no proposal for new
construction. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the
approval of this map.
5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause
serious public health problems.
The proposed parcel map will subdivide an existing parcel
within an existing industrial/commercial business park and
create 44 individual condominium units with common interest
and area in compliance with all development standards.
Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 will not yield
in any additional impacts upon public health in the area, as
no new development is proposed.
6. The design of improvements of the proposed project will not conflict
with easements necessary for public access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
Approval of the tentative parcel map will not create
obstructions or hindrances for access on Warner Avenue or
other easements. Each parcel will have independent access
along Warner Avenue.
Section 2. This project was reviewed in accordance with the Guidelines for the
California Environmental Quality Act. The recommendation is exempt from further
review pursuant to Section 15315. This Class 15 exemption allows minor land divisions
into four or fewer parcels on properties that meet applicable General Plan and zoning
regulations. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 2004-167 will be filed for
this project.
31A-13
Resolution No. 2005-03
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana after conducting
the public hearing hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 as conditioned in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 2005.
Kenneth Adams
Zoning Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Zoning Administrator, do hereby attest to and certify
the attached Resolution No. 2005-03 to be the original resolution adopted by the Zoning
Administrator of the City of Santa Ana on March 9, 2005.
Date:
Clerk of the Zoning Administrator
City of Santa Ana
31A-14
Resolution No. 2005-03
Page 3 of 3
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-03 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform
Building Code and all other applicable regulations.
The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to
exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the conditional use permit. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result
in the revocation of the conditional use permit.
A. Plannina Division
1. Comply with Development Review Committee comments dated September
23, 2002 for Site Plan Review DP No. 04-062.
2. Prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and agreements
for parking access, property maintenance, sewage, public utilities and
landscaping, reciprocal access easements and agreements, emergency
vehicle access, drainage, fire hydrants and sprinkler systems.
3. The Final Parcel Map and CC&R's shall be recorded within six months of
approval of the Final map by the City Council.
4. Two copies of the recorded Final Parcel Map and CC&R's shall be
submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Department, Building Division
and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation.
3Xfl~';r5
31A-16
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR
THE LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM
APPROVED
As Recommended
As Amended
Ordinance on 1 sl Reading
Ordinance on 2nd Reading
Implementing Resolution
Set Public Hearing For
~
{)~t{u~
ITV MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal
the amount of $270,000 to the Land and Water
for construction of restroom facilities at
Playground in Carl Thornton Park.
of a grant application in
Conservation Fund Program
the Kiwanis Barrier-Free
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application in
the amount of $150,000 to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
for construction of an amphitheatre adjacent to the Wildlands and
Watershed Interpretive Center in Santiago Park.
3. Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application in
the amount of $75,000 to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
for refurbishment of the picnic area located at the entrance to the
Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park.
DISCUSSION
The State of California Department of Parks and Recreation is accepting
grant applications for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
(LWCF). The LWCF Program was established through federal legislation in
1965 and has been instrumental in the development of parks throughout the
Uni ted States. The LWCF Grant Fund requires a 50 percent match of non-
federal money, with an exception made for Community Development Block
Grant funds. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency
requests Council's approval to submit three LWCF grant applications.
The Kiwanis Barrier-Free Playground was designed to provide the
opportunity for special needs children to play and camp in a park
setting. The proposed project will provide ADA compliant restroom
facilities for children and families using the playground. Projected Park
Acquisition and Development funds will provide the required match.
55A-1
Resolution Authorizing Submittal of
LWCF Grant Applications
April 4, 2005
Page 2
The proposed amphitheatre at Santiago
opportunities for educational programming
and Watershed Interpretive Center and
Program. Projected Park Acquisition and
provide the required match.
Park will provide additional
to take place at the Wildlands
through the Park Naturalist
Development funds will also
The refurbishment of the picnic area at the Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice
Park would consists of the removal of the existing deteriorated picnic
shelter, concrete slab, tables, and walkways. A new picnic slab, tables,
walkways, and trash receptacles would be installed to the west of the
existing location. proj ected Community Development Block Grant funds
will provide the required match.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
~~
Gerardo Mouet
Executive Director
Parks, Rec. & Comm. Svcs. Agency
55A-2
032305155
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-035
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS TO BUILD
RESTROOM FACILITIES FOR THE KIWANIS BARRIER-
FREE PLAYGROUND AT CARL THORNTON PARK
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A Congress, under Public Law 88-578, has authorized the establishment of
a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program, providing Matching
funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and
developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and
B. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for
administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures
governing Applications by local agencies under the program; and
C. Said adopted procedures established by the State Department of Parks
and Recreation require the City of Santa Ana to certify by resolution the approval of
application(s) and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of said
application(s) to the State; and
D. The building of restroom facilities for the Kiwanis Barrier-Free Playground
at Carl Thornton Park (Project) is consistent with the Statewide Comprehensive
Recreation Resources Plan California Outdoor Recreation Plan - 2002; and
E. The Project is compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions
immediately surrounding the Project.
Section 2. The City Council approves the submittal of an application for
$270,000 in Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance to build restroom facilities
for the Kiwanis Barrier-Free Playground at Carl Thornton Park; and
Section 3. The City Council certifies that the City has matching funds from
Park Acquisition and Development Funds and can finance 100 percent of the Project,
half of which will be reimbursed; and
Section 4. The City Council certifies that the Project is compatible with the
land use plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the Project; and
55A-3
Resolution No. 2005-035
Page 1 of 2
Section 5. The City Council appoints the City Manager, or the Executive
Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency or his designee, as
agent for the City of Santa Ana to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments,
payment requests and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws
which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
day of
,2005.
ADOPTED this
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Laura Sheedy
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
Council members
NOES:
Councilmembers
ABSTAIN
Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT
Councilmembers
CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005 -035 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2005-035
Page 2 of 2
55A-4
032305155
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-036
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS TO AN
AMPHITHEATRE AT THE SANTIAGO PARK WILDLANDS
AND WATERSHED INTERPRETIVE CENTER
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A Congress, under Public Law 88-578, has authorized the establishment of
a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program, providing Matching
funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and
developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and
B. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for
administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures
governing Applications by local agencies under the program; and
C. Said adopted procedures established by the State Department of Parks
and Recreation require the City of Santa Ana to certify by resolution the approval of
application{s) and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of said
application{s) to the State; and
D. The building of an amphitheatre adjacent to the Wildlands and Watershed
Interpretive Center in Santiago Park (Project) is consistent with the Statewide
Comprehensive Recreation Resources Plan California Outdoor Recreation Plan - 2002;
and
E. The Project is compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions
immediately surrounding the Project.
Section 2. The City Council approves the submittal of an application for
$150,000 in Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance to build an amphitheatre
adjacent to the Wildlands and Watershed Interpretive Center in Santiago Park; and
Section 3. The City Council certifies that the City has matching funds from
Park Acquisition and Development Funds and can finance 100 percent of the Project,
half of which will be reimbursed; and
Resolution No. 2005-036
Page 1 of 2
55A-5
Section 4. The City Council certifies that the Project is compatible with the
land use plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the Project; and
Section 5. The City Council appoints the City Manager, or the Executive
Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency or his designee, as
agent for the City of Santa Ana to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments,
payment requests and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws
which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
day of
,2005.
ADOPTED this
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Laura Sheedy
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
Councilmembers
NOES:
Cou ncilmembers
ABSTAIN
Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT
Councilmembers
CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005 -036 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2005-036
Page 2 of 2
55A-6
0323051ss
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-037
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS TO REFURBISH
THE PICNIC AREA AT PRENTICE PARK
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A Congress, under Public Law 88-578, has authorized the establishment of
a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program, providing Matching
funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and
developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and
B. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for
administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures
governing Applications by local agencies under the program; and
C. Said adopted procedures established by the State Department of Parks
and Recreation require the City of Santa Ana to certify by resolution the approval of
application(s) and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of said
application(s) to the State; and
D. The refurbishing of the picnic area at Prentice Park (Project) is consistent
with the Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Resources Plan California Outdoor
Recreation Plan - 2002; and
E. The Project is compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions
immediately surrounding the Project.
Section 2. The City Council approves the submittal of an application for
$75,000 in Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance to refurbish the picnic area at
Prentice Park; and
Section 3. The City Council certifies that the City has matching funds from
Community Development Block Grant Funds and can finance 100 percent of the
Project, half of which will be reimbursed; and
Section 4. The City Council certifies that the Project is compatible with the
land use plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the Project; and
Resolution No. 2005-037
Page 1 of 2
55A-7
Section 5. The City Council appoints the City Manager, or the Executive
Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency or his designee, as
agent for the City of Santa Ana to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments,
payment requests and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws
which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Laura Sheedy
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
Councilmembers
NOES:
Council members
ABSTAIN
Council members
NOT PRESENT
Council members
CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005 -037 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2005-037
Page 2 of 2
55A-8
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
~
~
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
APPROVED
TITLE:
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 1 st Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
DONATION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
$
/' /
Gd / '~2
//, '/
, t~ / V -(.tl.t.-~
v CITY MANAGER
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Police Department to donate surplus or
expired police body armor to the United States Department of the Army,
California Army National Guard.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the California National Guard is to provide mission ready
forces to protect and support the vital interests of the nation, state, and
communi ty. The United States Department of the Army, California Army
National Guard, 40th Military Police have made a formal request for ten
police-type ballistic vests for use by their personal protection cadre.
The Santa Ana Police Department currently possesses ten surplus or expired
vests, in serviceable condition, that it is able to donate in support of
their mission.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
oo~
P 1 M. Walters
Chief of Police
Police Department
558-1
Iss3l29/2oo5
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING THE DONATION OF
SURPLUS OR EXPIRED POLICE BALLISTIC VESTS TO
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
CALIFORNIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, FOR PEACE
KEEPING OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby, finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. Various nations and organizations throughout the world are offering
assistance to the new government of Kosovo to assist in peace keeping
and stability of the government.
B. The United States Department of the Army, California Army National Guard,
40th Military Police (hereinafter "MP") are responsible for supporting the
security efforts of the new government of Kosovo. The MP have requested
law enforcement ballistic vests for their use in this effort.
C. The City of Santa Ana possesses ten serviceable ballistic vests which are
no longer used by the Santa Ana Police Department because they are
surplus or expired.
D. This equipment cannot be sold as surplus and is the type of surplus
property that would be subject to destruction by the City.
E. The City of Santa Ana, by and through the Santa Ana Police Department,
wishes to donate the surplus/expired ballistic vests to the MP.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby authorizes and directs
the Chief of Police, or his designee, to donate, on behalf of the City of Santa Ana,
surplus or expired, but serviceable ballistic vests to the MP for their use in Kosovo
peace keeping and stability operations.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting
this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2005-038
Page 1 of 2
558-2
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Laura Sheedy
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005-038 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No, 2005-038
Page 2 of 2
558-3
558-4
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
MARCH 7, 2005
TITLE:
r~
/ . '
(, /- , ,,'
t{~/; 72.-____
CITY MANAGER
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Ordinance on 151 Reading
o Ordinance on 2nd Reading
o Implementing Resolution
o Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO ..Y - ~ -0 t)
-
PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve the proposed fiscal year 2005-2006 Community Development
Block Grant Program.
2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the approved program to the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the
City's fiscal year 2005-2006 allocation of Community Development
Block Grant funds, and execute the grant agreement with the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
3. Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager
and the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with nonprofit
agencies and/or subrecipients awarded funds as part of the approved
program.
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to transmit the Human Relations Commission's funding
recommendations for fiscal year 2005-2006 Community Development Block
Grant Social Services Programs to the City Council.
By a vote of 9:0 at its Regular Meeting of February 14, 2005.
DISCUSSION
Since fiscal year 1974-1975, Santa Ana has received annual Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to improve low- and moderate- income
neighborhoods, eliminate blight and create a more stable economic base.
These funds have been used for a diverse range of programs including
75A-1
Public Hearing - CDBG Program FY 05-06
March 7, 2005
Page 2
housing, street improvements, parks and public works improvements, social
services, historic preservation and community services. The City's
entitlement for fiscal year 2005-2006 will be $7,910,023. No more than 15
percent of this entitlement may be used for social service programs.
The proposed CDBG program and budget for fiscal year 2005-2006 reflect the
culmination of a process that solicited proposals from outside
organizations and City agencies for the use of the annual entitlement.
Invitations to apply for funds were distributed to 160 organizations in
September 2004. Staff then met with the Human Relations Commission (HRC)
in its capacity as the CDBG Citizen Advisory Board to review the
applications and conduct three public hearings held on January 18, 20, and
25, 2005 in the City Council Chambers.
Following the public hearings, staff met again with the HRC to draft a
recommended social service program and budget for City Council
consideration. The proposed fiscal year 2005-2006 CDBG program and budget
(Exhibit 1) consists of the Commission's recommendations for social
service funding and staff's funding recommendations for the remainder of
the program, including capital projects, code enforcement and program
administration. Exhibit 2 consists of the HRC ranking and funding
recommendations for the social service programs. The City Council public
hearing will provide another opportunity for public input and the
completion of the process necessary to submit our locally approved program
to HUD.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the recommended action will authorize the City Manager to
submit the approved program to HUD and to execute a grant agreement, which
will result in the City's CDBG letter of credit being augmented by
$7,910,023. These funds will be available for the approved program
effective July 1, 2005.
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
patricia C. Whitaker
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
{~,~~\- ~ A ~ \\-:\-.-:
-
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director
Finance & Management Services Agenc~/.{,/
PCT/NTE/mlr
H:\ACTIONS\2005 CC\PH - CDBGProgFY2005-2006 3-7-05.doc
75A-2
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2005-2006 HRC PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS
BY TAB ORDER
T\B
APPLICANT NAME
SERVICE
PROVIDED
SERVICE
CATEGORY
05-06 AMT.
REQ.
HRC
RECOMM'D
GRANT
f
I Academia Comm. Learning Center Education Youth $20,000 0
2 Achievement Institute Education Youth $8,600 0
3 AIDS Services Foundation Medical Adult & Familv $10,000 0
4 Assistance League of Santa Ana Clothina Youth $25,000 17,000
5 Blind Children's Learning Center counselinQ Youth $25,000 18,000
6 Bowers Museum Education Youth $10,000 0
7 Boys & Girls Club of Santa Ana Recreation Youth $45,000 29,000
California Elwyn Emplymn\. Adult & Familv $17,700 0
8 Ass\.
9 Cambodian Family Education Youth $45,000 18,000
10 Camp Fire USA volunteer Youth $15,000 6,000
CAR.E. Counseling Domestic Adult & Familv $15,000 0
II Violence
12 Career Beginnings of O.C. Education Youth $20,000 14,000
13 Casa de Salud Family Health Clinic Nutrition Adult & Familv $75,000 15,000
14 Centro Cultural de Mexico Education Youth $22,500 0
15 Colette's Children's Home Shelter Housina/Shelter $23,800 0
16 Community Service Programs(CSP) Shelter Youth $25,000 0
17 Council on Aging - Linkages Medical Senior Citizens $15,000 6,000
Dayle Mcintosh Center Emplymnt. Adult & Familv $15,707 14,000
18 Ass\.
19 Delhi Center Recreation Senior Citizens $20,423 0
20 Betty Shabazz Delta Academy Education Youth $6,500 0
21 Families Together of Orange County Education Adult & Familv $20,000 9,000
22 Feedback Foundation Nutrition Senior Citizens $60,000 31,000
23 Hope Community Services, Inc. counselina Youth $48,990 7,000
24 Hotline of Southern California counselina Adult & Familv $5,000 5,000
Domestic $20,000 18,000
25 Human Options Violence Youth
26 Paul McNeff Kidsingers Recreation Youth $20,000 9,000
27 Latino Psychological & Soc. Srvcs. counselina Youth $72.950 0
28 Latino Youth Leadership Institute counselinq Youth $48,400 10,000
29 Legal Aid Society of Orange County Leqal Adult & Familv $7,500 6,000
30 Lighthouse Learning Center Education Adult & Familv $20,000 16,000
31 Mariposa Women's Center counselina Adult & Familv $10,000 7,000
32 MOMS prenatal Adult & Familv $71,947 0
33 Mercy House Transitional Living Ctr - Joseph & Regina Shelter Housina/Shelter $60,000 16,000
34 Mexican American Opportunity Fndtn. Recreation Youth $20,714 10,000
35 National Council on Alcoholism & Drug (Drug Court) counselina Adult & Familv $22,158 15,000
36 National Heritage Recreation Youth $25,000 0
37 Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter Shelter Housina/Shelter $25,000 0
75]{~3
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2005-2006 HRC PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS
BY TAB ORDER
TAB
APPLICANT NAME
SERVICE
PROVIDED
SERVICE
CATEGORY
05-06 AMT.
REQ.
HRC
RECOMM'D
GRANT
38 Orange County Bar Foundation-Shortstop counselina Adult & Family $20,000 13,000
39 Orange County Bar Foundation-Addiction counselina Adult & Family $10,000 11,000
40 Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Center Recreation Youth $25,000 12,000
41 Orange County Council, BSA (Learning for Life) counselina Youth $50,000 0
42 Orange County Crazies Recreation Youth $25,000 6,000
43 Orange County on Track counselinq Youth $20,000 0
44 Orange County Teen Challenge Education Youth $9,500 9,000
45 Orange County Youth & Family Services counselinq Youth $60,338 0
46 Orange County Youth Commission Recreation Youth $14,500 7,000
47 Phoenix House Orange County, Inc. Recreation Youth $13,803 9,000
48 PRCSA - McFadden Learning & Tech. Ctr. Education Youth $141,102 90,000
49 PRCSA - Project Pride Education Youth $215,434 198,000
50 Relampago del Cielo Recreation Youth $8,000 0
51 Saint Joseph Ballet Recreation Youth $50,000 41.000
52 Santa Ana Education Foundation Education Youth $25,000 0
53 Santa Ana Friends for the Animals Spay/Neuter Animal $9,500 0
Santa Ana Police Dept - Helicopter Program Crime 154,000
54 Prevention Adult & Family $406,245
55 Share Our Selves Medical Adult & Familv $35,000 10,000
56 S, CA College of Optometry Medical Adult & Family $53,100 15,000
57 Southwest Minority Economic Development Association Homelessness Adult & Family $12,000 10,000
Taller San Jose Emplymn!. Adult & Family $55,150 34,000
58 Ass!.
59 Think Together Education Youth $10,000 5,000
60 Thomas House Temporary Shelter Shelter Housina/Shelter $30,000 15,000
61 TKO Boxing Club Recreation Youth $15,000 13,000
62 Vietnamese Community of Orange County counselinq Youth $67,091 15,000
63 Volunteer Center of Orange County volunteer Senior Citizens $10,000 0
64 Williamson Institute Shelter Housinq/Shelter $35,000 14,000
65 WISE Place Shelter Housing/Shelter $13,500 12,000
Women Helping Women Emplymnt. Adult & Familv $10,000 5,000
66 Ass!.
67 Women's Transitional Living Center (WTLC) Shelter Housing/Shelter $40,189 6,000
68 YMCA Orange County counselinq Adult & Familv $10,000 0
$2,517,341
$1,000,000
7 5J(~4
4
PROPOSED 2005-06 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
NONSOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM FUNDING REQUESTS
2004-05 2005-06 2005-06
STAFF
TAB APPROPRIATION REQUEST RECOMMENDATION
Administration & Plannin~
69 Administration $ 835,000 $ 785,000 $ 785,000
70 Fair Housing Council of Orange County 68,990 69,984 69,985
71 General Planning 100,000 235,000 235,000
Total Administration & Planning $ 1,003,990 $ 1,089,984 $ 1,089,985
Obli~ations
72 Section 108 Loan Repayment --
Police Holding Facility 1,902,680 1,892,815 1,892,815
Total Obligations $ 1,902,680 $ 1,892,815 $ 1,892,815
Capital Improvements
73 Fire Equipment $ 1,368,200 $ 777,000 $ 777,000
Parks and Recreation --
74 Delhi Park Improvements 300,000 435,000 435,000
Public Works --
75 Delhi Neighborhood Street Improvements 400,000 535,000 535,000
Total Capital Improvements $ 2,068,200 $ 1,747,000 $ 1,747,000
Code Enforcement
76 Code Enforcement $ 1,995,260 $ 1,795,260 $ 1,795,260
Total Code Enforcement $ 1,995,260 $ 1,795,260 $ 1,795,260
Historic Preservation
77 Episcopal Church of the Messiah $ $ 35,000 $ 35,000
Total Historic Preservation $ $ 35,000 $ 35,000
Housin~ Rehabilitation
78 Rebuilding Together O.C. $ 15,000 $ 26,000 $ 26,000
79 Multi-Family Rehab Loans 123,4 70 323,963 323,963
Total Housing Rehabilitation $ 138,470 $ 349,963 $ 349,963
Total Nonsocial Services Request $ 6,910,022
TOTAL NONSOCIAL SERVICE RECOMMENDED FUNDING $ 6,910,023
Social Service Requests $ 1,000,000
TOTAL 05/06 COBG GRANT $ 7,910,023
7 SXJti~5
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2005-2006 HRC PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS
BY RATING ORDER
TAB
APPLICANT NAME
SERVICE
PROVIDED
SERVICE
CATEGORY
HRC
AVE.
RATE
05-06 AMT,
REQ.
HRC
RECOMM'D
GRANT
40 Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Recreation Youth 8.6 $25,000 12,000
r.p.nter
24 Hotline of Southern California counselina Adult & Family 8.6 $5,000 5,000
38 Orange County Bar Foundation-Shortstop counselinq Adult & Family 8.4 $20,000 13,000
39 Orange County Bar Foundation-Addiction counselina Adult & Family 8,4 $10,000 11,000
60 Thomas House Temporary Shelter Shelter Housinq/Shelter 8.4 $30,000 15,000
30 Lighthouse Learning Center Education Adult & Familv 8.4 $20,000 16,000
48 PRCSA - McFadden Learning & Tech. Ctr. Education Youth 8.3 $141,102 90,000
58 Taller San Jose Emplyrnnt. 8.3 $55,150 34,000
Asst. Adult & Familv
9 Cambodian Family Education Youth 8.1 $45,000 18,000
1 Acadernia Comm. Learning Center Education Youth 8.0 $20,000 0
7 Boys & Girls Club of Santa Ana Recreation Youth 8.0 $45,000 29,000
29 Legal Aid Society of Orange County Leqal Adult & Family 8.0 $7,500 6,000
44 Orange County Teen Challenge Education Youth 8.0 $9,500 9,000
49 PRCSA - Project Pride Education Youth 8.0 $215,434 198,000
51 Saint Joseph Ballet Recreation Youth 8.0 $50,000 41,000
61 TKO Boxing Club Recreation Youth 8.0 $15,000 13,000
65 WISE Place Shelter Housinq/Shelter 8.0 $13,500 12,000
18 Dayle Mcintosh Center Ernplymnt. Adult & Farnilv 7.9 $15,707 14,000
Asst.
31 Mariposa Women's Center counseling Adult & Family 7.9 $10,000 7,000
47 Phoenix House Orange County, Inc. Recreation Youth 7.9 $13,803 9,000
4 Assistance League of Santa Ana Clothina Youth 7.9 $25,000 17,000
13 Casa de Salud Family Health Clinic Nutrition Adult & Familv 7.8 $75,000 15,000
Hurnan Options Domestic $20,000 18,000
25 Violence Youth 7.7
34 Mexican American Opportunity Fndtn. Recreation Youth 7.7 $20,714 10,000
62 Vietnamese Community of Orange County counselinq Youth 7.6 $67,091 15,000
12 Career Beginnings of O.C. Education Youth 7.6 $20,000 14,000
20 Betty Shabazz Delta Academy Education Youth 7.6 $6,500 0
28 Latino Youth Leadership Institute counseling Youth 7.6 $48,400 10,000
22 Feedback Foundation Nutrition Senior Citizens 7.5 $60,000 31,000
55 Share Our Selves Medical Adult & Family 7.5 $35,000 10,000
56 S. CA College of Optometry Medical Adult & Family 7.4 $53,100 15,000
21 Families Together of Orange County Education Adult & Family 7.4 $20,000 9,000
57 Southwest Minority Economic Development Homelessness Adult & Family 7.3 $12,000 10,000
Association
2 Achievement Institute Education Youth 7.1 $8,600 0
42 Orange County Crazies Recreation Youth 7.1 $25,000 6,000
35 National Council on Alcoholism & Drug (Drug counselinq Adult & Familv 7.1 $22,158 15,000
I rourt\
17 Council on Aging - Linkages Medical Senior Citizens 7.0 $15,000 6,000
7 5;a:~6
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2005-2006 HRC PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS
BY RATING ORDER
T\B
APPLICANT NAME
SERVICE
PROVIDED
SERVICE
CATEGORY
HRC
AVE.
RATE
05-06 AMT.
REQ.
HRC
RECOMM'D
GRANT
,
26 Paul McNeff Kidsingers Recreation Youth 7.0 $20,000 9,000
46 Orange County Youth Commission Recreation Youth 7.0 $14,500 7,000
64 Williamson Institute Shelter Housina/Shelter 7.0 $35,000 14,000
5 Blind Children's Learning Center counselinq Youth 6.9 $25,000 18,000
50 Relampago del Cielo Recreation Youth 6.9 $8,000 0
23 Hope Community Services, Inc. counselinq Youth 6.9 $48,990 7,000
59 Think Together Education Youth 6.8 $10,000 5,000
67 Women's Transitional Living Center (WTLC) Shelter Housina/Shelter 6.8 $40,189 6,000
Women Helping Women Emplymn!. Adult & Familv 6.6 $10,000 5,000
66 Ass!.
10 Camp Fire USA volunteer Youth 6.6 $15,000 6,000
33 Mercy House Transitional Living Ctr - Joseph & Shelter Housinq/Shelter 6.6 $60,000 16,000
Renina
53 Santa Ana Friends for the Animals Soav/Neuter Animal 6.5 $9,500 0
6 Bowers Museum Education Youth 6.4 $10,000 0
16 Community Service Programs(CSP) Shelter Youth 6.4 $25,000 0
36 National Heritage Recreation Youth 6.4 $25,000 0
45 Orange County Youth & Family Services counselinq Youth 6.4 $60,338 0
Santa Ana Police Dept - Helicopter Program Crime Adult & Familv $406,245 154,000
54 Prevention 6,4
32 MOMS orenatal Adult & Familv 6.1 $71,947 0
CARE. Counseling Domestic Adult & Familv $15,000 0
II Violence 6.0
52 Santa Ana Education Foundation Education Youth 6.0 $25,000 0
68 YMCA Orange County counselinq Adult & Familv 6.0 $10,000 0
41 Orange County Council, BSA (Learning for Life) counselinq Youth 5.9 $50,000 0
27 Latino Psychological & Soc, Srvcs. counselinq Youth 5.8 $72,950 0
15 Colette's Children's Home Shelter HousinalShelter 5.3 $23,800 0
43 Orange County on Track counselinq Youth 5.1 $20,000 0
19 Delhi Center Recreation Senior Citizens 2.1 $20,423 0
63 Volunteer Center of Orange County volunteer Senior Citizens 1.5 $10,000 0
3 AIDS Services Foundation Medical Adult & Family 0,9 $10,000 0
37 Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter Shelter Housinq/Shelter 0.9 $25,000 0
8 California Elwyn Emplymn!. Adult & Familv 0.0 $17,700 0
Ass!.
14 Centro Cultural de Mexico Education Youth 0.0 $22,500 0
$2,517,341
$1,000,000
75X~7
75A-8
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIUAGENCY
ACTION
MEETING DATE:
~
~
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
D Ordinance on 1 st Reading
D Ordinance on 2nd Reading
D Implementing Resolution
D Set Public Hearing For
CALHOME REHABILITATION AND
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
./ / ~t;Z/ /
I.. /,'
l41L~,,-lt.iov-
CITY MANAGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
1. Approve an Appropriation Adjustment recognizing $500,000 in CalHome
Program funds and appropriating same.
2. Adopt the CalHome Rehabilitation and Replacement Program.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
Adopt the CalHome Rehabili tation and Replacement Program and allocate
$200,000 for Program funding.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
1. Recommend that the City Council:
a) Approve an Appropriation Adjustment recognizing $500,000 In
CalHome Program funds and appropriating same.
b) Adopt the CalHome Rehabilitation and Replacement Program.
2. Recommend that the Community Redevelopment Agency adopt the CalHome
Rehabilitation and Replacement Program and allocate $200,000 for
Program funding.
JT208-1
CalHOme Rehabilitation and
Replacement Program
April 4, 2005
Page 2
By a vote of 6: 0 (Turner absent) at its Regular Meeting of March 15,
2005.
DISCUSSION
On September 7, 2004, the City Council approved the submission of an
application for funding from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development CalHome Program. The City has been notified that
an award of $500,000 has been allocated for this program. Under the
CalHome Rehabilitation and Replacement Program (Exhibit 1), these funds
will be used to offer deferred payment, thirty-year rehabilitation loans
with zero percent interest rates to low income owner occupants of
manufactured homes and single family homes. All homes must be located
in CDBG eligible census tracts (Exhibit 2). Maximum CalHome
rehabilitation loan amounts will be $10,000 for manufactured homes and
$50,000 for single- family homes. Owners may also be eligible for
addi tional rehabilitation assistance through existing programs offered
by the City and the Agency.
In cases where it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the home,
manufactured home owners may be eligible for CalHome replacement loans
totaling no more than $50,000. CalHome replacement loan funds will be
offered in the form of deferred thirty-year loans with zero percent
interest rates. Up to $20,000 in Tax Increment Housing Set-Aside funds
may also be combined with the CalHome funds. The Agency replacement
loans will be amortized over thirty years. Consistent with our existing
programs, the interest rates will be based on household income and will
be 250 or 300 basis points below the 11th District Cost of Funds Index
published by the Federal Home Loan Bank, with a minimum interest rate of
one percent for very low-income households and one-and-one half percent
for low-income households. As an example, based on the index as of
March 1, 2005, the minimum interest rate would apply.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
proposed proj ect is exempt from further review. Categorical Exemption
ER No. 2005-26 will be filed for this project.
JT208-2
CalHOme Rehabilitation and
Replacement Program
April 4, 2005
Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds will be available in the CalHome Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program fund (account no. 143-149-6951). Funds will be available in the
Tax Increment Housing Set-Aside fund (account no. 504-508-6951).
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
t~
patricia C. Whitaker
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
rancisco
Executive
Finance &
Gutierrez
Director If/<,
Management Services AgenCY~
PCW/TG/mlr
H:\ACTIONS\2005 CCVT CC-CRA CalHomeRehab&ReplaceProg 4-4-05,doc
JT208-3
CALHOME REHABJ:LJ:TATJ:ON
AND REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
The CalHome Rehabilitation and Replacement Program will
in accordance with the requirements of the State of
CalHome Program and Community Redevelopment Agency of
Santa Ana Tax Increment Housing Set Aside funds.
be operated
California,
the Ci ty of
Eligible Borrowers
· Borrower(s) must be the owner(s) of a single-family home, or of
a manufactured home that is permanently affixed to a space in a
legal, properly permitted manufactured housing park.
Properties must be located in a CDBG eligible census tract in
the City of Santa Ana.
· Manufactured homes must be designed for long-term occupancy.
Vehicles designed for recreational purposes do not qualify.
· Total annual income must be at or below 80 percent of area
median income, as published by the u.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the California Department of Housing
and Community Development. Effective March 15, 2004 the
maximum household incomes are as follows:
Household Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Maximum Income
40,250
46,000
51,750
57,500
62,100
66,700
71,300
75,900
· The after rehabilitation value of single family homes cannot
exceed 100% of the current median sales price of single family
homes in Orange County. Determination of that sales price will
be made at the start of underwriting.
· Borrower (s) must occupy the home as their principal residence,
and shall not lease or rent the property during the term of
their loan.
· Borrowers must have a current credit history that demonstrates
prudent use of debt and a commitment to meeting financial
obligations. For single family homes, total debt on the
property, including the rehabilitation loan, cannot exceed 90
percent of the after rehabilitation value of the home.
EXHJ:BJ:T 1
Page 1
JT20B-4
General Program Guidelines
· Funds budgeted annually will be made available on a first-come,
first-served basis. Priority for loan funding will be based
upon the date and time a completed application and all
necessary documents are submitted. The City reserves the right
to make the sole determination as to when such completed
applications and documents are received.
· For manufactured homes, loan funds may only be used for repairs
necessary to bring the home into compliance with applicable
federal and state building codes. All code deficiencies must
be addressed. In cases where it is economically infeasible to
rehabilitate the home, funds may also be used to purchase,
transport and install a new or completely refurbished unit on a
spot located in a legally permitted manufactured housing park
in the City of Santa Ana.
· Funds may not be used to refinance existing debt or for repairs
to the park.
· For single family homes, all code deficiencies must be
addressed, and must account for at least 40 percent of the
total rehabilitation cost.
· The Loan Committee will make final determination as to the
eligibility of specific repairs or purchases.
· All persons with an ownership interest in the home must sign
the application and all loan documents.
· Borrower(s) will be required to carry hazard insurance for the
life of the loan. If applicable, they will also be required to
carry flood insurance.
Rehabilitation Guidelines
· Licensed general contractors who have
licensing and insurance requirements
rehabilitation and construction work.
complied with
must perform
City
all
Ter.ms of Rehabilitation Loans
· CalHome Rehabilitation Loans may not be forgiven.
· The interest rate for these loans will be zero percent. No
loan payments will be due during the term of the loans which
will be 30 years.
· The entire loan will be due and payable upon sale or transfer
of the property, when the property ceases to be owner occupied,
or upon the loan maturity date.
· Upon the loan maturity date, and in accordance with CalHome
Program regulations, these loans may be amortized over a period
of time to be determined by Loan Committee, or may be deferred
for an addi tional period of time to be determined by Loan
Committee.
EXHIBIT 1
Page 2
JT20B-5
. The maximum amount for rehabilitation of an existing
manufactured home is $10,000. The maximum amount for
rehabilitation of a single family home is $50,000. If
addi tional funds are necessary, the household may be eligible
for other programs offered by the City of Santa Ana or the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana.
. The ratio between total debt on a single family home and its
after-rehabilitation value as determined by an appraisal cannot
exceed 90 percent.
. Borrower(s) will be required to execute appropriate documents
incorporating the terms of their loan and the requirements of
the CalHome Program.
Replacement Guidelines
· Licensed manufactured housing dealers and their representatives
must perform all work for the transportation and installation
of the replacement unit.
. Replacement homes must be newly manufactured, and must be
located on an appropriate site in a fully permitted
manufactured housing park located in a CDBG eligible census
tract in the City of Santa Ana.
. Replacement units must be of comparable size as the existing
home, unless it is determined the household is overcrowded and
a larger unit is required.
Ter.ms of Replacement Loans
. The maximum amount is $70,000. Funds for the replacement
program may consist of an Agency loan not to exceed $20,000 and
a CalHome loan not to exceed $50,000.
. The ratio between total debt on the home and its market value
cannot exceed 100 percent plus a maximum of up to five percent
of the sales price to cover actual closing costs.
. The City's loan servicer will collect and manage impound
accounts for payment of property insurance for the term of the
Agency loan.
. Borrower(s) will be required to execute appropriate documents
incorporating the terms of their loans, the requirements of the
CalHome Program and Tax Increment Housing Set Aside funds.
. Both the Agency loan and the CalHome Program loan will be
secured by means of a Statement of Lien added to the home's
registration. The Agency loan will be in first position.
Ter.ms of CalHome Replacement Loans
· CalHome Replacement loans may not be forgiven.
EXHIBIT 1
Page 3
JT20B-6
. The interest rate for these loans will be zero percent. No
loan payments will be due during the term of the loans which
will be 30 years.
. The entire loan will be due and payable upon sale or transfer
of the property, when the property ceases to be owner occupied,
or upon the loan maturity date.
· Upon the loan maturity date, and in accordance with CalHome
Program regulations, these loans may be amortized over a period
of time to be determined by Loan Committee, or may be deferred
for an additional period of time to be determined by Loan
Committee.
Agency Replacement Loan
. The Agency loan will be amortized for 30 years.
. Interest rates will be as follows:
Household Income Interest Rate
0 - 50 Percent of Area 1. 00% Per Annum or 300 basis points below
Median the 11th District Federal Home Loan Bank
Monthly Cost of Funds Index, whichever is
higher.
51 - 80 Percent of Area 1. 50% Per Annum or 250 basis points below
Median the 11th District Federal Home Loan Bank
Monthly Cost of Funds Index, whichever is
higher.
. Determination of the interest rate will be made at the time of
loan approval.
. During the term of the loan, upon sale or transfer, when the
home is no longer owner-occupied, or upon loan maturi ty date,
the entire principle is due and payable to the Agency along
with the applicable interest rate.
. Borrower(s) whose monthly housing debt, inclusive of the Agency
loan, is less than or equal to 30 percent of their gross
monthly income will make equal monthly payments in an amount
that will fully amortize that loan by its scheduled maturity
date.
. Borrower(s) whose monthly housing debt allows for partial
payments only of the Agency loan will be required to make such
payments. Partial loan payments will be applied first to
accrued interest and then to principal. Such borrower(s) must
be income-certified every five years to insure that their
monthly housing debt still allows for partial payments only.
. Borrower(s) whose monthly housing debt, exclusive of the Agency
loan, is equal to or more than 30 percent may have their loan
payments deferred. Such borrower (s) must be income-certified
every five years to insure that their monthly housing debt is
still equal to or greater than 30 percent.
EXHIBIT 1
Page 4
JT20B-7
City of Santa Ana
2000 Census Tracts and Block Groups
~ e ~ i
~ '\ LI ..BJ ~-
';;:O'J"G'O", ~'oT B~5'3kl' BG3. BG~);C 0 ~ ~G~;:; 7B~830r
i ~_: / F~N~
~ -' \ BG-' \ BG-'
"-H,(' 1 BG.1 Be,- 1 l
'" BG- 17S,4 C 1 /54 04 SANTA ClARA A'"
?~I BGo . 15303 ~ ~
.r :',02 15302< ~f- { ~ BG' i i RG2
00-] ~
17TH ST BG- 1 BG- 1 BG- 1 11TH S1
6G-1 I /
B91 04 'el' 0
BG-' 8G.2
, BG- / W...._GT"N All
BG. I '" /; 5;')oB~ ' r- _ ; 52 D? B~' ~O BG 3
891 05 / / I C1VlCCENTl:ROR
BG- 2 8G.:;>
BG.2
~ /
In 1;G~3 BG- 3 ~ BG- 3
r BG I ~ B~G' '~ 7 bJG9~2~ 48 1..9L 4.. BG2
8G-2 BG-2 l
BG.l
L1 "':G2 ,,,,,"
BG-2 :':'". BG.3
BG.l
I
"
CJ
CJ
CJ
Census Block Groups
Census Tracts
CDBG Eligibility
aG-:3 EiG.2
BG' l
754~BG-2
60-2
75' 0
BG-3
r !
~
890,
W!()()1
BG. 2 ~
890 (]4
BG I
i BG2
," ~ ,
~ 0 80-4", BG 2 ~
~ 80-4 _ 80.4 ! 8G-l 6
6G.2 BG-2 j ~
~G" 7":'...... i ~
. BGI i. ~5403 ~ e
~ ...-- 44 O~ ~ BG- 2 BG- 3 g
8G-3 BG 1 74406 r
\
~
)
8G-'
7 SO 02
I
I
~ 755iJS
BG.1
IBG'
BG-1l;j
h----
~ 748
/4803 8G- 1 BG-:' BG- 1,"48
748 D'
BG-}
1,..-" BG 3
80.4 ~ L
BG.2 /4901
- 8G-5 !IBG.1
I--..... B03 8G2j1--~BGl
BG1:q ~ 0 IBG' Ii M BG 3 BG' ~~~
~ BG 1 ~ 746 2 BG 4 ii3
74601 Me ADOEN,ft. l~
\ 8G.3
'48 )~21
BG'3~
,~
744
",,'on_.
..
~
8G- :' )60- 3 BG- 1-, 7
8G- :'
/" ~,;
BG' ~ f;
~ ____ WAA":~;:
-/~
/ 14 BG'
I
i BG 3 I
,,,",,,,,J
BG I
74102
BG-4 BG 5 8G.5 BG.1 I
.. 74403 BG-'
1450) :ii /
EDINOER"V
80.4 BG-l BG-2
142> io ~
BG- 1
74300
BG-3 ! BG-2
"'-- BG-2
WARNER "
,,' .-1 -- O~ ~ i'~~ 303
BG' rU--~
8G-3
BG- ,
/
_:BG"!IB('7
~~
'.
.11 11BG. 3
74003
~"\
~""'-
~ BGI ~
1 RG' '. BG3TI
B~ '10
~W3'
BG.3
h 755 15
6G-1
0"
'"
ALTONAV
;!
i"
..Q
i.~(;- ~-17
BG-3
~
"'"",
'\,
.~",
7
'-
+
-N-
.
0.0 0.5
-
1.0 1.5
-
2.0mi
I
~
~
Source: 2000 Census Data
CDBG Eligibility Updated March, 2004
CcP\'l'igtlI2OOol,AHRighl5Rewrv<<l
EXHIBIT 2
JT20B-8
REQUEST FOR AGENCYI
COUNCIL ACTION
~
~
MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TITLE:
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2004-24, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 2004-03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2004-
05 (COUNTY MAP NO. 16556), VARIANCE NO.
2004-11, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
2004-05, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2004-06 AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THE GENEVA
COMMONS PROJECT AT 20 E ST FIRST AMERI AN
WAY - COASTAL RIM R PE , APP I
cJ: ~LI"N1i:L-<- -
. f -CITY MANA ER
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
D As I~ecommended
D As Amended
D Ordinance on 1 st Reading
D Ordinance on 2nd Reading
D Implementing Resolution
D Set Public Hearing For
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-215.
2. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2004-03.
3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05.
4. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 as
conditioned.
5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as
conditioned (County Map No. 16556).
6. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned.
7. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as
conditioned.
8. Adopt a resolution finding the project to be consistent with the
purposes of the State Aeronautics Act.
9. Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute the
Cooperative Agreement for Offsite Improvements between the
Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, the Nexus Development
Corporation, Coastal Rim Properties, the Community Redevelopment
Agency and the City of Santa Ana.
75C-1
j
Geneva Commons Project
April 4, 2005
Page 2
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Agency and
the Secretary to execute the Cooperative Agreement for Offsite
Improvements between the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, the Nexus
Development Corporation, Coastal Rim Properties, the Community
Redevelopment Agency and the City of Santa Ana in an amount not to exceed
$5 million.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-215.
2. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2004-03.
3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05.
4. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 as
conditioned.
5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as
conditioned.
6. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned.
7. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as
conditioned.
At its November 22, 2004 meeting by a vote of 5:0 (De La Torre and Sinclair
absent) .
DISCUSSION
On November 22, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the Geneva Commons project, a request by Coastal Rim Properties to
construct an 8-story, 84-unit residential building and an 18-story, 194-
unit high-rise condominium tower (Exhibit A). In addition, the ground
floor and podium levels will contain approximately 18,500 square feet of
retail, leasing office, recreation and fitness facilities for the
project.
75C-2
Geneva Commons Project
April 4, 2005
Page 3
After considering the various applications and
Planning Commission recommended approval of the
several modifications. These modification include:
project impacts,
project subject
the
to
1. Recommending approval of a five-party (Geneva Commons, Nexus,
Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, City of Santa Ana and the Santa
Ana Redevelopment Agency) Cooperative Agreement for Off-site
Improvements provided the document is signed prior to the City
Council approval of the project;
2. Amending Section 5.8.4 of the Development Agreement (In-Lieu park
Development Fee) to require the fee be spent on parks located in the
southeast quadrant (south of Warner Avenue/East of Bristol Street)
of the City;
3. Adding Section 5.8.6 to the Development Agreement to limit the
amount of fast food (no table service) restaurants on the site to no
more than 3,000 square feet;
4. Modifying Planning Division Condition No. 4 of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2004-24 to prohibit the construction of units that have
their bedrooms and bathrooms back onto bedrooms and bathrooms of
adjacent units where possible;
5. Amending Planning Division Condition No. 7 of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004-24 to require the submittal of a Perforated Metal Screen
Program for the graphics on the parking structure to the Planning
Commission;
6. Modifying Planning Division Condition No. 9 of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2004-24 that required a minimum dimension of 6 feet for
all balconies to apply only to primary balconies;
7. Amending Planning Division Condition No. 14 of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2004-24 to allow electric fireplaces instead of gas;
8. Adding Planning Division Condition No. 17 to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004 -24 to require a noise analysis prior to building permit
issuance which identifies measures that provide a safety margin
design standard for additional noise mitigation of 3 dB below the 45
CNEL required for the project;
75C-3
Geneva Commons Project
April 4, 2005
Page 4
9. Adding Planning Division Condition No. 18 to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004-24 to require each unit to have cast iron drain lines to
improve interior noise attenuation;
10. Adding Planning Division Condition No. 19 to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004-24 to require cable and smart wiring within each unit;
11. Amending Planning Division Mitigation Measure No. 65 (renumbered as
No. 68) of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 to include language
related to the City Council overrule of the Airport Land Use
Commissions determination; and,
12. Amending Police Department Condition No.7 of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004-24 to allow the use of convex mirrors on the elevators
instead of glass backed elevator cabs.
Since the Planning Commission's action, two other significant amendments
have been made to the development agreement. The first amendment
(Section 5.8.4) is the requirement of an avigation easement on the
development. The easement is intended to prevent claims, actions or
lawsuits for nuisance or interference with the use of the property such as
noise, sound, vibration, dust or other environmental effects related to
aircraft operations. The City will be the benefited party in the avigation
easement, which can be assigned by the City to a third party. The
applicant is aware of this requirement and is supportive of this amendment.
The second amendment [Section 5.2(c)] involves the project's participation
in a community facilities district or assessment. If formed, the district
will be used to pay for city services such as police, fire and parks
generated from the development of the project.
Public Works Issue/Median Cut
At a prior Planning Commission study session, a discussion was held on
the feasibility of providing a median cut on Imperial Promenade at the
motor court. Based on the input received from the Commission, the
applicant revised the plans to include a median cut, which was eventually
approved by the Commission without discussion. Subsequent to the
Commission action, the Public Works Agency noted reservations about the
median cut due to safety concerns, specifically with vertical sight
distance. For instance, vehicles traveling westbound on Imperial
Promenade will not see vehicles turning left out of the motor court until
the last minute due to the sloping of Imperial Promenade. The Public
Works Agency is recommending that the median cut not be permitted due to
this traffic safety concern.
75C-4
Geneva Commons Project
April 4, 2005
Page 5
Airport Land Use Commission
The Geneva Commons development was required to be reviewed by the Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) per Section 21676(b) of the
California Public Utilities Code due to the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment. On December 18, 2003 the ALUC held a public hearing on the
project (Exhibit B). After continuing the item, on January 15, 2004 the
ALUC determined that the project was conditionally consistent with the
AELUP, with the condition that the project does not exceed 229 feet above
mean sea level. (229 feet above mean sea level at this location is a
maximum of 13 stories and would have required lowering the 18-story
building by 5 stories). A copy of meeting minutes and correspondence dated
February 4, 2004 communicating the ALUC's decision is attached hereto
(Exhibits C and D). Since the upper levels of a high-rise building are a
critical component of creating an urban lifestyle and thus ensuring this
projects success, the City requested and was granted a reconsideration of
the project by the ALUC.
On March 18, 2004, the ALUC reconsidered the project. However, in this
reconsideration the ALUC found the project to be inconsistent with the
AELUP, contrary to the January 15, 2004 decision that the proj ect was
conditionally consistent. A copy of meeting minutes and the correspondence
dated March 31, 2004 communicating the ALUC's decision is attached hereto
(Exhibits E and F) .
Public Utilities Code Section 21676 permits the City Council, by a 2/3
vote, to overrule the ALUC determination if it finds that the proposed
project is consistent with the purposes of State Aeronautics Act. The Act
states: "It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly
development of each public use airport in this state and the area
surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California airport noise standards. . and to prevent
the creation of new noise and safety problems." Public Utilities Code
Section 21670. As required by Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the
City provided the proposed findings to the ALUC and to the CalTrans
Division of Aeronautics. While CalTrans did not provide any comments to
the City, on February 17, 2005, ALUC submitted its response to the proposed
findings. A copy of the February 17, 2005 correspondence is attached
hereto (Exhibit G). According to Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the
comments by ALUC are merely advisory to the City Council.
75C-5
Geneva Commons Project
April 4, 2005
Page 6
Moreover, it should be noted that the City has not enjoyed the level of
cooperation from the ALUC, which cooperation the City should reasonably
expect from such an agency. For example, the City of Santa Ana, at ALUC
staff's request, submitted revisions the General Plan, including the
Airport Environs Element, the Noise Element and the Land Use Element, in
order to become consistent with the AELUP. After numerous meetings and
discussions with the ALUC staff and attorneys, counsel for the ALUC raised
a myriad of new issues that were legally unfounded. See correspondence
from Orange County Counsel dated August 6, 2004 attached hereto (Exhibit
H). The City sent correspondence addressing each of the issues raised by
Orange County Counsel, to date we have not received any response to this
correspondence. The City's correspondence is attached hereto (Exhibit I).
Consistent with the Purposes of State Aeronautics Act
In support of the proj ect, the applicant submitted an Aviation Impact
analysis prepared by Tom Krause Aviation Consulting. This analysis
confirmed that the project will not adversely impact any instrument
approach procedures, departure procedures, or visual flight rules (VFR)
procedures at the Airport (See Exhibit 11 of the Planning Commission staff
report dated November 22, 2004 attached as Exhibit A) .
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also confirmed that the project
would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient
utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of
air navigation facilities (Exhibit J) .
The Geneva Commons project would not adversely impact the operations of the
Airport; the future development plans that exist for the Airport; the
approaches to Airport runways; create noise concerns; create public health,
safety or welfare concerns. Additionally, the project falls within a level
of acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
As part of the Development Agreement, the applicant has agreed to record an
avigation easement on the development. The easement is intended to prevent
claims, actions or lawsuits for nuisance or interference with the use of
the property such as noise, sound, vibration, dust or other environmental
effects related to aircraft operations. The City will be the benefited
party in the avigation easement, which can be assigned by the City to a
third party.
75C-6
Geneva Commons Project
April 4, 2005
Page 7
The Geneva Commons project will help preserve the identity and integrity
of MacArthur Place as a maj or development area by incorporating high
quality design, materials and finishes, public art, and pedestrian
linkages to the other MacArthur Place developments. Geneva Commons will
help energize and strengthen the southern gateway to the City and will
reinforce an active, vibrant urban lifestyle envisioned when the
MacArthur Place District Center plan was adopted in 1987. Additionally,
the project will be of direct benefit to the community by providing
additional housing opportunities in the City. Finally, approval of the
development agreement will contribute toward improvements to the
surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, staff recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 as
conditioned, Development Agreement No. 2004-03, Tentative Tract Map No.
2004-05 as conditioned, Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned, Zoning
Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05, Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as
conditioned and find the project to be consistent with the purposes of the
State Aeronautics Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
The funds necessary for this action will corne from project specific tax
increment generated by the development project.
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS:
*/ J{Jj
Stephen G. Hard~g
Executive Director
Plan and Building Agency
':\~~~~\..\~.l.-) ~~~~
Francisco Gutierrez
Executive Director ~
Finance & Management Services Agenc~i.-
Pa icia C.
Executive Director
Community Development Agency
VF:rb
vf/reports/Geneva Commons/GenevaCommons.joint cc-cra
75C-7
REQUEST FOR
Planning Commission Action
4\~
('\~ r.\,
~~~.
/" aucatJon l.s .",
A~--~'~U,
-v ~-
PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING - FILED BY COASTAL RIM
PROPERTIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2004-24, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2004-
03, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2004-05
(COUNTY MAP NO. 16556), VARIANCE NO. 2004-
11, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2004-05
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2004-06 FOR THE
GENEVA COMMONS PROJECT
Prepared by Vince Fregoso
APPROVED
o As Recommended
o As Amended
o Set Public Hearing For
DENIED
o Applicant's Request
o Staff Recommendation
CONTINUED TO
~~
Executive Dir~~
~ning Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-215.
2. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2004-03.
3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05.
4. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 as
conditioned.
5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as
conditioned.
6. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned.
7. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as
conditioned.
DISCUSSION
Request of the Applicant
Coastal Rim Properties is requesting approval of a conditional use permit,
development agreement, tentative tract map, variance and zoning ordinance
amendment to allow the construction of two residential high rise buildings
with 278 condominium units and 13,000 square feet of retail space at 200
East First American Way. EXHIBIT A
75C-8
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA NO. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 2
Property Description
The MacArthur Place development is a master planned, 62 -acre mixed-use
development located on MacArthur Boulevard between Main Street and the
Newport-Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway. The approved specific development
plan allowed approximately 4,000,000 square feet of development,
including retail, office and hotel uses and a maximum of 400 residential
units.
The subject site, located within the MacArthur Place development, is a
vacant, 3.1-acre rectangular shaped parcel situated at the northeast
corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Imperial Promenade. Currently,
MacArthur Place is developed with approximately 894,000 square feet of
office uses, 20,000 square feet of retail space, a 7-story, 251 room
DoubleTree Hotel and 346 for-sale and rental residential units.
The project site is zoned Specific Development No. 43 (SD-43) and has a
General Plan land use designation of District Center (DC). Surrounding
land uses include several office buildings to the north, the Hutton
Center retail and office development to the south, a vacant parcel of
land proposed to be developed by First American Title as a parking
structure to the east, and a mixed use retail/residential project to the
west (Exhibits 1 and 2) .
Project Description
Coastal Rim Properties is proposing the construction of Geneva Commons,
which includes both an 8-story, 84-unit residential building and an 18-
story, 194-unit high-rise condominium tower. The total number of lofts
and condominium units proposed for the project is 278. In addition, the
ground floor and podium levels will contain approximately 18,500 square
feet of retail, leasing office, recreation and fitness facilities for
the project (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5) .
The 8-story mid-rise building has been designed as a loft product, with
each unit having a two-story design. Three different floor plans are
proposed for this proj ect, each consisting of two-bedrooms and two-
bathrooms. Table 1 on the following page provides a breakdown of the
units within the loft building.
75C-9
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 3
Table 1
Loft Building Summary
Plan Units Proposed Percent of Percent of Bedrooms Square
building project Footage
1 44 52% 17 2 1,100
2 28 33% 11 2 1,200
3 12 15% 4 2 1,350
Total 84 100% 32% n/a n/a
The 18-story high-rise building has been designed as a traditional
condominium project and will contain 194 for-sale units. Eight
different floor plans are proposed for this project, each consisting of
one to three-bedrooms and one or two-bathrooms. Table 2 below provides
a breakdown of the units within the high-rise building.
Table 2
Tower Building Summary
Units Percent Percent of Square
Plan of Bedrooms Bathrooms
Proposed building project Footage
1 18 9% 6 1 1 1,000
2 36 19% 13 2 2 1,563
3 18 9% 6 2 with den 2 1,400
4 51 27% 19 2 2 1,079
5 18 9% 6 2 with den 2 1,376
6 18 9% 6 2 2 1,283
7 18 9% 6 2 2 1,142
8 17 9% 6 3 2 1,255
Total 194 100% 68% n/a n/a n/a
Various interior amenities are proposed for the project. Interior
amenities within each unit and common areas include granite counter
tops, hardwood floors in the main living areas, top-of-the-line
appliances, tiled bathtub and shower walls, utility closets with
individual laundry hook-ups, private decks and a gas fireplace in the
living room. Development amenities include an entry lobby with
concierge services, a resident lounge with high-end furniture, a fitness
center with top-of-the-line exercise equipment, secured resident covered
parking, contemporary storefront glazing in the public areas, granite
counter tops in all common areas and a building security system.
75C-10
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA NO. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 4
Exterior amenities for the project include a motor court drop-off at the
First American Way entry, enhanced paving at the street level and
central courtyard, a formal row of palm trees along First American Way,
extensive landscaping within the central resident courtyard and a
swimming pool, spa and large sun deck. In addition, an outdoor
fireplace and barbeque, park benches, lush landscaping and a water
feature will be provided wi thin the resident courtyard. Finally, a
minimum of 7,000 square feet of private storage space will be provided
in the three-level garage as well as a minimum of 25 square feet within
each unit in the form of additional closet space beyond that provided
for in the bedrooms.
The developer has coordinated with the City's consulting urban designer
to refine the exterior finishes of the buildings and address comments
raised at prior Planning Commission study sessions. The buildings have
been designed to be the focal point of MacArthur Place while
complementing the existing office, hotel and retail structures. The
contemporary buildings will consist of materials such as concrete, glass
and plaster with metal articulations throughout the exterior. In
addition, the first two levels of the project will incorporate a
sandstone veneer finish, with the sandstone being used up to the fourth
level at the corners on MacArthur Boulevard to unify the parking
structure with the towers.
The landscaping concept for the Geneva Commons proj ect is designed to
reinforce and enhance the existing landscape and streetscape. To
emphasize the urban nature of First American Way, special hardscape and
landscape features such as outdoor seating, lighting, and special pavement
treatments will highlight the retail area and sidewalks. A diverse
landscape palette will also be provided along MacArthur Boulevard to
accent the various architectural treatments along this corridor
(Exhibit 6).
Analysis of the Issues
Conditional Use Permit
Section IV (Land Use) of the Specific Development No. 43 (SD-43)
document identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses
within the MacArthur Place District Center. Included as a conditionally
permitted use in the Residential Use section are health facilities for
75C-11
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 5
the use of proj ect residents. As a component of this proj ect, the
applicant is intending to construct a 3,500 square foot recreation and
fi tness center on the Podium level of the proj ect. The center will
include a 600 square foot fitness room with state-of-the-art exercise
equipment, a 400 square foot recreation room, an 800 square foot
computer room, a 400 square foot median room, a kitchen and restrooms.
The conditional use permit requirement is intended to ensure that the
facility is used for residents only as a public health facility would
resul t in the need for additional parking. To ensure the proj ect
remains for private use only, conditions of approval have been included
which limit the use of the facility to residents and invited guest only.
Development Agreement
The development agreement is a legal contract between the developer and
the City that defines the terms and nature of development proposed for the
project site. This agreement establishes development intensity, permitted
uses and standards for the term of the agreement. In exchange for the
City vesting the proposed project, the development agreement requires
certain improvements and public benefits (Exhibit 7). The primary deal
points of the agreement include:
1. The right to build out the project as entitled for a period of
ten years, with one two-year extension.
2. The developer will not be entitled to request or accept any
agreement with the Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency
for economic or other assistance in development of the
project.
3. Committing one-half of one percent (.5%) of the value of the
project, as determined by standard building permit valuation,
for the installation on the site, at a prime location visible
to the public, of permanent work(s) of public art. The
work (s) of public art shall be in place no later than the
first certificate of occupancy for the proj ect and shall be
maintained in perpetuity by the property owner (s) . In the
event the project is not constructed, the developer shall
donate an amount equal to the one-half of one (0.5) percent
public art commitment to the City for acquisition and
75C-12
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 6
installation of public art at a City designated location no
later than the end of the term of the agreement. This is
expected to generate a public art requirement of approximately
$200,000.
4. Paying the City a fee of $35.50 per square foot for parkland
dedication in lieu of the dedication of parkland as required
in the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Section 34-204 et seq. of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code). Additionally, the fee may be
increased yearly by the average rate of increase in land costs
in the City of Santa Ana, as that increase is established by
an independent trade publication or source specified in the
Agreement. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of each
building permit. Based on the development proposed, this is
expected to amount to a fee of approximately $1,547,705.93.
5. Paying the City a $3,000.00 per unit inclusionary housing fee
prior to issuance of each building permit. The developer may
be relieved of this requirement if it enters into an agreement
wi th the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa
Ana to either rehabilitate and sell or lease, with
affordability covenants as required by State law, 42
inclusionary housing units and/or provide for up to 60 percent
of these inclusionary units to moderate income residents at
its project.
6. Preparation of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
for the proj ect that include provisions such as allowing no
more than four residents per unit, requiring the units to be
owner-occupied and at no time may the entire unit be rented,
limiting home based businesses to those allowed by the
Municipal Code, and establishing a significant financial
penalty (i.e., the maximum permitted by law) to be imposed by
the Home Owners Association (HOA) to any member who violates
these provisions.
Sandpointe Neighborhood Area Improvements: Included in the development
agreement is a five party agreement between the City, the Redevelopment
Agency, the Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, and the developers for
the Geneva Commons and Nexus projects for improvements to the Sandpointe
Neighborhood Area. The developers of the Geneva Commons and Nexus
projects have agreed to contribute towards off-site improvements in
75C-13
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 7
order to address impacts associated with their development and to
enhance the Sandpointe neighborhood (see Exhibit D of Exhibit 7
[Development Agreement]). This agreement proposes to construct numerous
improvements in and around the Sandpointe neighborhood in addition to the
mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed by the City for
their respective developments. The improvements will result in a total
cost of approximately $8.7 million, of which Geneva Commons shall
contribute approximately $1 million. The Redevelopment Agency's
obligation (from future tax increment) shall not exceed $5 million, with
Nexus Development responsible for contributing the remaining $2.7 million.
The primary improvements referenced in the five party agreement include:
a. The demolition and construction of a new 8-foot high painted
block wall with landscaping on Main Street from Murphy Avenue
south to Sunflower Avenue, and on Sunflower Avenue from Main
Street to just east of Ross Street ($1.1 million).
b. The installation of a traffic signal at MacArthur Boulevard
and Birch Street ($200,000).
c. The replacement of windows for approximately 40 homes that
back onto Main Street ($140,000).
d. Construction of a new loading zone for Taft Elementary School
on an adjacent church property ($1 million) .
e. Contributing $200,000 to the City for the preparation and
implementation of a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. The
plan will review changes in traffic patterns within the
Sandpointe neighborhood after completion of the proj ect and
includes construction of appropriate measures to mitigate the
increased traffic.
f. The undergrounding of utility lines on Main Street, MacArthur
Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue (estimated cost of
approximately $3.2 million).
Tentative Tract Map
Since Geneva Commons is an exclusively for-sale project, the applicant
is requesting approval of a tentative tract map for condominium
purposes. Based on a review of the tentative map by the Planning
Division and Public Works Agency, the project has been designed to be in
compliance with the applicable development standards found in Chapters
34 (Subdivision) and 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the
SD-43 zoning document.
75C-14
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 8
Approval of the tract map will also be consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element
encourages residential development that provides a positive contribution
to neighborhood character (Exhibit 9).
Variance
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to reduce the
required setbacks on MacArthur Boulevard and Imperial Promenade. In
December 1987, the City Council adopted the MacArthur Place Specific
Development Plan to encourage a comprehensive planning effort within one
of the last maj or development parcels in the City. The obj ecti ves of
the specific plan included promoting a visually harmonious development
as viewed both internally and externally, providing landscaping that is
appropriate to the level of development and to encourage flexibility in
development while achieving overall City and community goals.
The original development concept for this site was for an office
building that would accommodate building setback requirements found
within the SD-43 document. However, due to a high demand for housing,
low demand for office buildings and a scarcity of available land, the
applicant is proposing a high-rise condominium development. To
accommodate this development, the applicant is proposing a variance to
reduce the required setback for this proj ect from 30 feet along any
street frontage to a IS-foot setback on Imperial Promenade and a 20-foot
setback along MacArthur Boulevard.
Staff is supportive of the setback variance for two reasons. First, the
proposed setbacks will be consistent with the setbacks approved for the
DoubleTree Hotel located directly west of the project site. Second, the
applicant is proposing enhancements to the project to mitigate the
reduced setbacks. The proj ect will incorporate upgraded architectural
materials along MacArthur Boulevard as well as an upgraded landscaped
palette along both street frontages.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The MacArthur Place District Center plan was approved to allow the
construction of an "urban village" development where office, retail and
residential activities would coexist in an attractive, well-planned
development. The primary focus of the proj ect was the development of
75C-15
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 9
approximately 4 million square feet of office space, with 400
multi-family residential units approved to encourage the
concept. To further promote the original concepts of MacArthur
applicant is proposing to amend the SD-43 document to allow the
exceed the 400 units permitted in MacArthur Place (Exhibit 10).
ancillary,
"village"
Place, the
project to
MacArthur Place currently has two residential developments with a total of
346 units. The Pinnacle Apartments, located at the northeast corner of
Main Street and MacArthur Boulevard, was approved in 1993 and contains 253
units. The recently completed Vantage Townhomes development was approved
to allow 93 for-sale units. The Geneva Commons project will require two
amendments to the SD-43 zoning document. Amendments are needed to Section
III.A.2 (Maximum Permitted Building Density/Intensity) and to Section V.
(Development Standards/Residential Permitted Density) of the SD-43
document. Both of these provisions restrict residential development
within MacArthur Place to 400 units. Staff is proposing these sections be
modified to allow 624 units, which will include the existing 346 units and
the proposed 278-unit development.
Site Plan Approval
Finally, the applicant is requesting site plan approval for the project.
Section 41-593.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a review of
all plans within a Specific Development Plan area by the Planning
Commission to ensure the project is in conformity with the Specific
Plan. The review also ensures that the buildings, structures and
grounds are in keeping with the neighborhood and will not be detrimental
to the development of the Specific Development area. After analyzing the
project, staff has found that the project will be in compliance with all
applicable standards of the City's General Plan, the Santa Ana Municipal
Code and the MacArthur Place Specific Development Plan document. Further,
the project design is in keeping with the MacArthur Place community, with
the project improving the desirability of investment in the area as the
project continues to show the successes of MacArthur Place.
Airport Land Use Commission
In accordance with State law, the building height for the 18-story tower
(250 feet from grade) and the project's close proximity to the John Wayne
Airport required the project to be submitted to the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. To comply with
75C-16
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 10
this mandate, the City referred the project to the ALUC in November 2003.
After holding two hearings on the project, on January 15, 2004, the ALUC
found the project consistent with the AELUP subject to the provision that
the project be reduced in height to 235 feet above sea level, or a maximum
of 14 stories. Given that the upper levels of a high-rise residential
building are a critical component of an urban lifestyle and that prior
entitlements were granted to allow high-rise development in MacArthur
Place, the applicant requested and was granted a reconsideration of the
project in an attempt to maintain the proposed height of the building.
On March 18, 2004, after receiving testimony on the reconsideration
request, the ALUC reversed its prior decision and determined that the
proj ect was inconsistent with the John Wayne AELUP. The inconsistent
determination was based on the ALUC's concern with the construction of a
residential proj ect in close proximity to the airport runway. As the
Planning Commission is aware, these ALUC determinations were made, in City
staff's view, without a solid factual basis and without proper findings.
The City Council may overrule the ALUC determination and approve the
project with a 2/3 vote in support of the project and after certain
findings of fact are made. The applicant has prepared an Aviation Impact
Analysis that clearly identifies the project as having no impact on the
operation of John Wayne Airport (Exhibit 11).
Further, an amendment to Mitigation Measure No. 65 of the CUP will also be
needed. This condition, currently a mitigation measure of the negative
declaration, requires ALUC approval for the project. Given the ALUC has
determined that the proj ect is inconsistent with the AELUP, the measure
needs to be reworded to accommodate a City Council overrule of the ALUC.
Vehicular/Pedestrian Traffic
The MacArthur Place Environmental Impact Report that was approved in
1987 identified five phases of development for MacArthur Place. Both
the specific plan and the EIR identified a series of transportation
improvements to reduce potential traffic impacts associated with the
amount of building area developed in each proj ect phase. Al though
development within MacArthur Place has yet to exceed the 1,214,925
square foot threshold for Phase 1, traffic improvements required for
Phases 1 and 2 have been completed. However, the Geneva Commons will be
making additional traffic improvements in the area. A fair share
75C-17
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 11
contribution for the restriping of the southbound approach along Grand
Avenue at Dyer Road to provide one exclusive left turn lane, one shared
left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane will be made. Also, a
fair share contribution for the restriping of the southbound approach of
Imperial Promenade to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, a shared
left turn-through lane and dual right lanes will be made.
Based on earlier Planning Commission discussions, the feasibility of a
pedestrian bridge linking the MacArthur Place and Hutton Center
developments was analyzed. The City's consulting urban designer studied
the intersection and considered impacts to the Geneva Commons and Nexus
projects and right-of-way in producing six alternatives and cost
estimates for a bridge across MacArthur Boulevard (Exhibit 12). The
study concluded that, although a bridge is feasible, existing and future
pedestrian counts might not justify a bridge at this intersection.
Conclusion
The Geneva Commons project is in compliance with the policies outlined
in the General Plan Land Use Element and will help preserve the identity
and integrity of MacArthur Place as a maj or development proj ect by
assisting in the development of this site. The development of this site
with high quality design, materials and finishes, the inclusion of
public art, and the creation of pedestrian linkages to the other
MacArthur Place developments will help in energizing and strengthening
the southern gateway to the City. Geneva Commons will reinforce an
active, vibrant urban lifestyle envisioned when the MacArthur Place
District Center plan was adopted in 1987. Additionally, the project
will be of direct benefit to the community by providing additional
housing opportunities in the City and by contributing toward
improvements to the Sandpointe area. Therefore, based upon an analysis
of the project and the project's compatibility with the City's General
Plan and applicable development standards, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2004-24 as conditioned, Development Agreement No. 2004-03,
Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as conditioned, Variance No. 2004-11 as
conditioned, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05 and Site Plan Review
No. 2004-06 as conditioned (Exhibits 13 through 19) .
75C-18
CUP No. 04-24, DA No. 04-03, TTM No. 04-05,
VA No. 04-11, ZOA No. 04-05 and SPR No. 04-06
November 22, 2004
Page 12
CEQA Compliance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental
Review No. 2002-215 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 20).
Additionally, one comment letter was received during the public review
period for the document. The response to this comment is included for
review (Exhibit 21) .
, .,-
'"-,_...~'"M___' .
VF:JM
vf/reports/ZOA04-05&CUP04-24GenevaCommonsl12204.pC
75C-19
j u u~ U M1
g
M1 SD-63 M1
M1 M1
DYER RD.
II
II
II
11___
" I r--......
M1 ~ 0 I...!
< M1 g M1 Ml M2
<
0 .
P
M1
CR M1 M1
R1
R1
C i t Y
o f
T U 5 tin
Al
-B
C-SM
Cl
Cl-MD
C2
C3
C3-A
C4
C5
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
PARKING MODIFICATION
COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CENTRAL BUSINESS
CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
CR
GC
Ml
M2
MO
o
P
PCD
PRD
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
GOVERNMENT CENTER
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
MILITARY OPERATIONS
OPEN SPACE
PROFESSIONAL
PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Rl
R2
R3
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
SUBURBAN APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN
R4
RE
SD
SP
m
~....~
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3rrTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
GENEVA COMMONS
200 EAST FIRST AMERICAN WAY
A
eW'
- = 500 FEET
1" = 1000 FEET
P LAN N
N G
AND
B U L 0
EXHIBIT 1
75C-20
N G
AGE N C Y
:> I-'
Ii W' I/)
I-' " Q
I/) ~ INDUSTRIAL <( INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL V) Z Q
~ '" 0 <(
~ ~ ~ ..J
..J
~ <(
ALTON AV. :x:
INDUSTRIAL
I-'
I/)
W
..J
Q.
<(
::l!
INDUSTRIAl.
~
c
a:
<(
c
z
t!
I/)
INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL
COLUMBINE AV. I;
il ~ .. W
~ U
OFFICE Z ~ FIRST
<( t:JU A.m~
'" U
::l! PARKING a:
~ ::l! MAJESTIC DR. w
::l!
en '" w <( U
Q I-
Z '" <( OFFICE I/)
<i z a:
a W iL
:iE ::l!
V) 0
a:
'" Q.
IX: ..J
<(
DOUBLE a:
TREE W
HOTEL Q.
!
C; t Y o I T us t j n
l
~
V<M..~
P LAN N
VACANTI
COMMERCIAl.
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3fTTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
GENEVA COMMONS
200 EAST FIRST AMERICAN WAY
N G
AND
B U
L 0
N G
EXHIBIT 2
75C-21
A
g..('
AGE N C Y
c:
- <<I
<<I - .
:::Ja...9
15.. E ~
CU ;:j .
c.;> __ ~
C::-O~
8~ J1
~~ ~ ~
>~
:;E~ ~
S3JDEldO~d wrn 1VlSVO;)
\lINl:lO~llV:J '\IN\! \llN\!S
Li N ~=_ij~~:=9=j~3~3~-=3sn03X _1:::viJ C'\
SNOWWO:) V AdNdU
.
>-
:it
:z:
'c:t
...~.
:E , /
~v:Y
:1;;:
CI)
,...
.----""--"
<+ ...__l)-
\''---..__~,-//J
~!
auelaJ!~
iB'
Q
:::.
....
en
a::
:;:)
:x:
.....
a::
'c:t
o
'c:t
:E
E
::l
:;;
co
...
g
...
~:J\Il!l3S 'SOle,s ~
cr:
3QtfN3WOl:ld
CUPO~2~DAO~3nTMO~5
SPR 04-6NA 0~111Z0A 04-5
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1 of 5
S3InlI[dO~d Will lV1SVOJ
V'INMO~llV:J '\tNV' V'lN\fS
~~~I5~~W6-:)-vnxj~fJ-~ 9
.
p auelaJ!~
'P
fs 2:' (ylIH
. ta 3:1
,I
~ !
i
I
---~~:~'''' ,!
'~I: J.' 9:~
" i" II ~~
~~l ~\ _.
'_. .:....,. ..' ~j w
e = -
Q~.__L' J
o
[:;]
.
'"
M
.
0..
:I:
0..
:I:
0lI--
>-
~
9
[:;]
il
~i
Ii
Ii
."'1
'. 'I
~ Ii
I
II
i
,
!
I
,
:
,
I
I
~1i
Ii
jl
I
i
,
I
=~~J~~~c2______L. ~~._I'. i
~
c:r::\
~- "'/'. . ~""'..,
......- . '- '
~
>1.u '.
:e /
~_::;//
/~'.
'--..... ;
CI)
,...
.O-.CO .0-.81 .0-.81 .NO .0-,81 .o-~I .O-.CO
9" en
;~ I ;;:;
Q)
~, ::J
I (!)
.2
22
c;;
U5 ,.
. a;
>-
~~
c:
'aQ)
5~
II CI Q) IiI:t
"0:
c:I~
@$
Q~
. C <<S 'IL
i!U5
ftlN
Do l.O
::;;:
~
.,;
co
==
"'co
0;=
a: ...
u
.d
-
c:
""
5
~
en
Q)
0:
::::, .
'(;:j
1iJ
0:
.2
22
]j
en
l.O
~
~ ,.
~ :.6'.6.9-4.0-4
~:JIffl13S 'S018's~
C!' l
30tfN3WOHd
~1~5
c:::
~ <0.
::::::sa.. 9
a b
Q;)"'C1t
u c:::.
c::: ::::::s ':':
o e~
c...:> c.!:) b.l
~~ ~
~~..
>!;:
~~
~~
C"J
.
c:::C
Q
>-
....
en
et
:;:)
:x:
I-
et
c:r::
o
c:r::
:e
~<J ..,
~ C':)
S3Il~3dO~d wm 1Y1SVO::> \fINlJO~llV:J 'VNV \f lNVS I
~~ N <X:
~ ";> >~
~ N 0 dW W 03 ;--3 \/~a~ N~H ~ ::::I
...... i<3
Cl.. c
C1.> ~ .11 ~~ g
u- ..
cO- S! Cl
8a::~ ..
..
~".'.,","',;-,."..,'.f','.,,1
....T a:t .-:
lD
. ' Cl "
:-, ..... .--
'"
'"
II..",
'"
'"
1;'
c:
u.J
tLJ6+Y
1
l'G+..
z:
Oi
~
c..
alrelaJH
i
I
ii-
II
II
I
c:i't;1
....0
<1)0
'" of
g g
b
~
9
~
'" '"
'" '"
"" Q
>- U
<1: >
31: ffi
'" .....
ci
c I; ,. en
-' .0-,(< .0-,81 .o-.8~ .0-,(< .0-,81 .0-.81 .0-,(<
~ '" I "2",81
~ I ~:
q: I CD a::
>
0 I ~' II)
ii ...J .!!!. ::;)
. II 0:1.... . .... ,-
- ~. II c/ a.. ]j :x:
a:: ~. t~ @>~
I " . : '", caO I-
UJ .g .
ULII ~ eM a::
:e g :si!
f}. :; q:
II 1-- a..
q: .
.~ 0
l- I ~
~
CI) l' q:
- w :e
,,- i!
91
~:
0,
I
I
i
1
I
. II
". Ii
~'~
C"") i-
....'11-
.;
=0. '!o-_
.;~ 9'
_~__~ ~ _-==--=L3! -.
~I '.0-.6;.9-4.0-.&
IN! ;
.0-,",
>tOV8i3S 'OOlll ,g(
<
ElOtfNElVtlOHd
e~~lf
531DI3:dOHd wrn lV1SVO;)
VINMO~I1V:J 'VNV V INVS
~ <;>
ac::~
CD C'<:I ."
ga:::,;,;
8~~
;"-~~------------------------~-~-' C"'\
~-NOWWOJ~-VAHNj ,J
",:.J6+~
ooltj.
r~c=~--;;-~~TA~=,-
II ....
il II en -r
II ~
I
Ii
II:
i "
'"
M
",
'"
M
'"
M
.
'"
~
" ~ ~
II
Iill.'.'.,;.,'l
'---,-:' m,
L~' aD.,.
. ;' ~ ....
'"
M
>-
'"
'"
~
II ~
~ ~ II'
~ 11'.0:,91; .0-,91 f .O-,CO i .0-,91 ' .0-,91' .O-,CO .0-;91 .0-,91 .O-,CO .0-,91 .0-,91 .O-,CO '. .0;'9(11,
~ ~Il.' "t: i .
~ ~Iill'" J .~~. · :1' ~
.... .., ~ .~' ~ ~, " ::
~ ~Br~ ...~' 'f~' r
t; , II!"! "J'il",
,... i I.~ .~
II "1 II
II >- I!
Ii "K . L 9" il
h~JI'] · ill
! ~ ...: A.8801' 'I
11 II ~ ~...C.) _,!'C II
II ... ~ '.0'&9-,9.0-,6 II
Ill., . . . . II
I'\=.=~._~~~=_~~~~_.=~_..L;I J=. ~_~_~_o~=~_~ =!:B1
iI:;
30tfN3VVOl:ld
2.255
O-t~ ~
~~ N
>~ ~
~~ ~
~
.
<C
\{:7
Q
:>
....
to
a:
:;:)
::r:
....
a:
~
o
~
:e
sm~EldO~d wrn lVlSVO=>
VINl:lO~IlV:l 'VN't V1NVS
c=
- '"
"'O:b
=> .
..... .0,
0.. --I <'-<
~L..L..d'.
01:: -S ..9:!
CO~
c...:> ..- '"
SNOWW03:5 3'/AoaNH9
I
L
.~--
Io'L-d"....
I
00"
~,
>-
~
'"
""'"
w
~~
a:: ...
E
=>
:a
o
....
I'
II
I' ~ '
"" '
~ I
~ I
--rr
II r
i I
)
i
I
I
II
i
I
i
I
~,.""
:,:::<':":-_-:-111,':
,. ,.,~ _.'L .
w
u
i:!
a:: >-
wa::
.....0
. ... .....
0'"
0..,
a:: ,
,
1
L.
----..--..------------.- -
lr.l'taL3S'90lIh9~ '
<
3QtfN3/IVOHd
~5G.
~~ ~
~~ N
>~
~~ i
/-..."
(( ....j
\~/
LO
.
~
Q
::::.
-J
QJ
a:
::)
:x:
....
a:
q:
o
q:
:E
VIN~O~Il\f:l 'VNV V1NVS
S3]nladO~d Wffi lV1SVO)
ffi~w~-;-~v~xt~~~
~cnU').
1S.~I:i:~
~c....o~
c:: ....... --I ..
o'E~,~
(.;) :::) \:::::!.) ~
'"
;z
'"
::>
'"
c:
~
~:;j ~
~5 N
>~
~~
0)
I
~
<;> '"
..,
'" ;:;
z
i5 C"':)
I-- I:i::
=
LL- --'
C> +
--' --I :c
--' UJ !;;c
UJ ::>
::> UJ =
UJ >- --' ::;;;;:::: C'Ju....;
--' i!' a: o-CZl
a: B'i UJ c:::x::
UJ 3: UJ =
0- --I = LC")
0- = a.. "'"
= --' '" ~
'"
;z ;z
'"
l!' ::>
0
'"
z
Z
i5 C'-I
l:i: I:i::
=
--'
~ C> +
--' --' --I :c
UJ UJ I--
::> ~ <C
'" UJ '" =
a: --' c: --' ::;;;;:::: ",u.;
~ a: ~ a: 0=
UJ UJ c:::x::
0- 3: UJ =
--I ==
0- = '"
= --' a.. '" ~
;z
w
0-
o
~
~
t:
g
--'
UJ
::>
UJ
--'
a:
UJ
0-
0-
=
'"
z
Z
i5
'"
a:
~
CUPO~2~DAO~3nTMO~5
SPR O~6NA O~111Z0A O~5
.~~~1
~
.,...- I:i::
l:i: =
--'
C> +
--' --I :c
UJ I--
::> <C
UJ =
--' ::;;;;:::: C'-Ju...;
a: 0=
UJ c:::x::
3: UJ =
= --I =~
--' a.. '" ~
IfINl:nJI1\f:J '\fN\f If IN\fS
SilllJI3:dO~d WI~ lVISVOJ
~=1f6=WW-O~_2'/Aa~N~ ~
,.-
r-
--'
~~
""
. '" '
~+~
<C = o.n
~~~
";>
~
ro ex:
.a~UJ9
0..""3:'"
~a:O.1I
c::: ....... I-- ":":
o"c ~\7:l
c...:> ::::;) '::=J ~
~~ ~
COQ
>~
~~
c::>
.,-
I
<C
C"'J
~
L.L.. :::I:
C"-I!;;c
""
. '" '
z: +~
<C==
--' LU r-
a..=q
'" ~
~
Z
6"
~6f4
S3InI3.dO}Jd WI}J 1VlSVOJ VINlJO;IlV::l 'VN'<J VINVS
[1~H__~_~__dO-1-3-^-3a-~~S-n--a-3X1J'i] C'\
SNOWWO:) V AHNHL.,/
i
I-
-' t
::l:~iil
h
'r
II
~'---
I i- ~
IL'
!i
~
.-
..o-~
..0-...
;il~
~IH
~
',1T~-'T'---]
L.~M_.._~L__J~----r------
I lltJ
=~=J-
Fi
(n)?m~J' fj"l]
\'l:.::-5'>::i~:;-=id L [J'
"
~
__~=-_-=,= L..-.__-.J -,-
c_~
I I
---------1
I
..0-...
, 75~2~
n; a:
.a ~ LJ..J 9
g-$ :s: "if
(..:>a...o.
c::: ___ I-- ':":
<:) "2: ~\ '*
c:...:> ::::l ~ a:l
""..... '"
~< ~
_ hlZ -
QQO N
>~
~~
iin
"
I
L-lll i
~--~-_! ~
q-JOB
"
..0-...
VINllo,mvo 'VNV VlNVS
S3Il}ltldO}ld wrn lVlSVO=>
~-~-~~-~-~3-~ 3 ,/ AO aN-~ ~
;Ui
,
.0-""
"
~ic~
~J~
LJ.,
[~~ []
I' In]
L l>,
;;r'
---;V-l
~~ I
Ii" I
I
L_LIi 1
.0-""
"
C'O 0::
~~LU9
Cl..C'O::S:'"
~C::O.II
c:: :t: I- ':
8 :5 @)~
~~ B
~8 N
>~
~~
i,l~
~iH
,
I
[----~~~l
fl!Dp
[lb~
I
.0-""
"
S3I.HEldO}ld wm lV1SVO::> \lIN~O~llV::> '\INV \l1N\lS
Ii N 3 _ ~---:d- 0-=-'-3/; ~_iL.l3~= a3~X -~ C'"'\
SNOWWOJ V A3:N3:~
CUPO~2~DAO~3nTMO~5
SPR 04-6NA O~11JZOA O~5
EXHIBIT 5
Page 1 of 7
-..:i .
:::J c:: 9
15.. 0 ~
Q) -- II
u~:-
c::::> Q;i
O~~
c...::> u.J '"
~~ ~ ~
-hl5;;: <C
00t=:
>~ or
~~ ~
~- ..
~
z:
<C
c...::>
c::
u.J
~
<C
r-
en
...-
S3.InEIdO~d wrn 1VlSVO:) VIN~O~IlV:J '\INV VUNS
[~i{~3-Vl-d-~1 3 "'-3 0.. 3. L6--a3~XIViI C'\
SNOWWOJ V AHNHU
-", ':iTI ~ [I' ~'l~l~' ,~jrJI. .11' JI.I.I :
,.Jr., '~' JI" ! ."1
---..H-... -- - ',' ~-- - -- -- ~--~ - , - -1- -t- --<- -i
::J+..j,: ,',j:, _.ii ,:1,: ,,::' _ j" .1, j
~-"~-fr_-_-~:"i'--::~_l=-:1._---j:~~~_'~,~-.~:__.t'.--i~_u~:.-',-_:_::.J~~--_~;--~T--_-:1=:1~-~~~it-_.-
T .]'.:1 j J
_oj '~T ~'] --1
.J1E'
.J ...,J --I
. 1:11 ,j=
--i j ~J 1
~ b
~25 ~
~~l
c:: ::> G.i
Oa.>~
c..:>iIi~
0-4~ ~ ~
~B;;: <t:
>~
~~
z
o
i=
~
LJ.J
--'
LJ.J
I-
en
<t:
LJ.J
StUnEldO}ld wm lVlSVOJ
'If'Nl:lO~Il'lf:) '\fN\f 'If IN'lfS
LljL'I.~v.i-_do-1-3^3 a 3 S n a 3 x I ~ C"\
SNOWWOJ V AHNHU
'j
-i.
1
-1
i
n; .
.a c:: 6
c.. 0 ""
~"ia~
c:: :> Q)
OQ.)~
<:...:) [U ~
J
,'I
~
::c
""
~
;B
p'~e-
. .
~<] ~
~~ N
>~
~~
-.::r-
..-
I
<C
c:i
:>
.....J
co
0:
::::>
:J::
t-
o:
<C
c..;>
<C
:2:
S3IDI3:dO}Id wrn 1Y1SVO:)
\fINMO~llV::> ....t>r>t \flN\fS
<i:i .
=:J c: 9
15.. 0 ~
25~~
C>G5
o CD ~
c...:>D:ig
ll-N-3-vi-;'o--13--;;-3-a-3-Sna --:i-x -iri] C""\
SNOWWO;) V AtlNtlL,/
75C~3
O-l~ ~
~~ N
>~
~~
lC)
~
I
<C
U-I
Cl
<C
:z
U-I
::a:
C>
ex::
c....
....J
<C
a:
U-I
c....
::a:
S3:LUI3dO~d WI~ lVlSVO) IfIN~O~llV:J \IN\< 1flN'v'S
:1 N-=i-~""d0l3~-^-303::,LiL:=a3XIViJ C'\
SNOWWOJ V AHNHU
r~~~~r'II["~il'~iir]~I'I'~'llri'lri
',' ',' -" " ,4, ,',' ',,-,1, I, "" ,-, -,-,I ',', ',J
' . -- ,..t_j ~.J -- .' _~ .-1 --I -l:j-,
i. ;liL....tL.L..".,Lifi,JL~,.tJJ..J
~-,f,I~,~"I'..,.,-''"-I:-T'I~>-~n-::7-~:,--m-:''.-:1~'T-~t'~1.."~- ::;;,-_:.,.-"-
=ji~~ ~1_ -~1__- _ - _ - _ -"_ -.' -- ~j__ ". ___
" " ! ,I" j , ",' , 1 I
7'50.1.
~ .
:::J c= 9
o..O~
~~l
c:: :> Q;i
o Q.) '"
c..:>LJ..J~
~
J
~:;!G ~
~~ ~ c:t:
>~
~~
I-
0:::
::::l
o
~
--I
<C
i=
z
LoU
Cl
U5
LoU
0:::
0:::
LoU
s:
o
I-
53U~3:dO~d wrn 1V15VO) V1NllO~I"":) 'VNV V1NVS
~}~r6-N~W=55~~~~~9
~
8 ~- ck
~~~ !
~~-g~.E~~
'-u;coC5~ 00
~~5:~c..>~~~
~~ 1Ug~~ ~"C
~i~~~~ g~
~
.a "'C c::: 9
g-~~j1
Q'- co~
s= co :> ;,;
0- Q:) 10
c:...:>>~u:i~
~
~
=
~
j-~
~a
'In _
:E~_!j
~c..<.:>
~e~g
.s ~ g~
~~=ao
~eB!~
en <C ~ ~
~
::E
= >-
s=
,," g
'" '"
c.. <.:>
..,
en
= to
j!l ~
G:>_S!J
a: <r.>
p~~5<C-
~~
~~
>~
~~
~ !7
N <c:
Sill.UI3.dO}ld wm 1V lSVO;)
VINljO~ll\I:J 'VNV V1NVS
0-4~ s
~5 ~
>~
~I ~
00
or--
<i:
~m5w~m55-)=VxQff.f~ ~
co
=' t::9
15... --g (:) Co
Q,) C) +=I ,.II
c.> ...... C'd
C::C"CS>ep
8..D~~
g~
~~ r; E
*~~~
~g~Q)
~~ ~~
~3::E8
'"'
:1!j
~
~
~
~ 0>
co co
8 16'~
~ 12 a
gJ ~ ~
(5 ..9
~ U)
'" '"
0 '"
c- ::s a:
~ '" 0
a: ~
c- o a: ~
<C c- w :z
<-> c- o..
c- ::> ::;; :z
0 '" j;;! 0
~ :E <->
:E a: o<l
:3 ~ ""
:3 <C '"
<C ~ <-> i5
fr> "" <.n
"" N <.n
=
T-
~
'"
o<l
I1~
~'-'- 0
$~-2fa
~U)8~_
~~g~~~
~ 8~i~.;
us ~ ~.!!:::c.:>~
~
a:>~~
~:;~
-g~O
'" ~ =
"'> ::>
~
~ E .-
E ~
~i
~~
c- <>
'jij
::;;
=E;:
~~
c- <->
..
S3JDI3.dO~d WI~ lVlSVO:)
VINlJO,IlV:) VNV V1NVS
] ~ 51 "
.D l::.- U
~ dol ~ E l;l
e:':::C""O~J
l~~.~~
8.~l~~€
~jIU~
~ilHH
t::
C'O
a:::
c:a = .
=:J 0.. 9
+-'~b
at~51
~-g~
<:) C't:S ~
~ --.J <J)
~~~~WW63~5~~~W~}~{j 8
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?>
f8?;:
z
~
~
:E
f8?:
en
f8?-
f8?
f8?
f8?
f8?
I
!I! I
~ ~ ! I
H ~ i I
P ~< /
HI i m ~, /
H~ H hi
"l!~ ". .~/
hi ~i hi
i,H ',I H
Iii H h
N r
/
/
/
;
/
I
I
I
;
I
"I
~
;
~
I
J
~
I
\
I cl . ~I J,I ;1. ~
-I - - ~" ~I '" ""I ~ ~ t ·
~I g i ~ a5~; ~ ~ ~ ~ il ~ ~i '
t;; ~ ~i ~'~,a~~~i ~~~. l,Ch ~~L .~h,~ h~
i! iH~ Ii! hH j. ~u.. I~H ItdhH ;" IIi
~ ~ H~ rH nU ~li JUli i.~! .h~~H d ~i",
~ ~! ~ ~ f.!. ,i t . I ~lil ~I!i \ ;:11"
~ ~ ilillljij llliju fit utili ~Ji iliUHil"i nh~ i
~ I __I. ill li!11 1.1 Illul. IIII JI~ljjl_ .11 II!~' ~
(~)08~0 I
! i ~
l ~ ~ ~
~; I H
OO~
,
,
,
z,
CUP 04-241DA .0~3riTM 04-5.
SPR 04=1W:arOA 04-5
~~ ~ "'7
~~ N --.J
>~ ..
~~ ~
~s
~~
c
>
..J
In
a:
:J
:J:
I-
a:
<(
o
<(
:E
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
FREE RECORDING
GOVERNMENT CODE ~ 6103
RESTATED AND NOVATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
by and between
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
COASTAL RlM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
and
GENEVA COMMONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Dated: March 16, 2005
28
EXHIBIT 7
75C-39
RESTATED AND NOVATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND
GENEV A COMMONS, LLC, A CALIFORI'JIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
This REST A TED AND NOVA TED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
("Agreement") is entered into between THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and
municipal corporation duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California
(referred to herein as "City") on the one hand, and COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION and GENEVA COMMONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (collectively referred to herein as "Owner" or "Property
Owner") on the other hand.
1. RECIT ALS. The Agreement is entered into with reference to the following
facts:
1.1 Purpose. (1) The purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the
development of a small portion of the real property which was the subject of a Development
Agreement entered into on January 4, 1988 and recorded as Document 88-260709 in the Office
of the Recorder of the County of Orange (hereafter the "Original Agreement"). The Original
Agreement was subsequently amended on or about June 4,2001, by Document No.
20010429519 the Office of the Recorder of the County of Orange. The real property which was
the subject of the Original Agreement is zoned by the City as Specific Zoning District No. 43
("SD-43).
(2) A portion of the real property covered by the Original Agreement
was subsequently acquired by Owner, who has applied to the City to amend SD-43 and have
approved a new tentative map.
(3) The City and Owner agree that the changes Owner seeks in the,
Original Agreement substantiate the need to replace the Original Agreement with the instant
Development Agreement, rendering the Original Agreement, and any of its amendments, null
and void as applied to Owner's Property (as the word "Property" is defined in section 2.3
herein).
(4) As more particularly set forth in section 2.4 of this Agreement,
Owner has proposed constructing at the northeast comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Imperial
Promenade an approximately 278-unit condominium project consisting of an IS-residential level
high rise project and an eight-story building, together with approximately 13,000 square feet of
ancillary retail, of which no more than 3,000 square feet may be devoted to "fast food" or "take
out" restaurants.
1.2 Code Authorization. City is authorized pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to enter into Development Agreements with persons having
legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing certainty for both City
and Owner in the development process. City enters into the Agreement pursuant to the
provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies. The parties acknowledge:
75C-40
(1)
the time of development.
This Agreement is intended to assure adequate public facilities at
(2) This Agreement is intended to assure development in accordance
with City's General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and Specific Development District No. 43.
(3) This Agreement will permit achievement of goals and objectives as
reflected in the City's General Plan, all applicable Specific Plans and Specific Development
District No. 43.
(4) Owner is required by existing City regulations to provide
mitigation for certain impacts and pay certain regulatory fees as conditions of approvals through
the regulatory process.
(5) This Agreement will allow City to realize extraordinary and
significant public infrastructure facilities and other supplemental benefits in addition to those
available through the existing regulatory process.
(6) Many of the extraordinary and significant benefits identified as
consideration to City for entering into this Agreement are of regional significance, relate to
existing deficiencies in public facilities, require Owner to contribute a greater percentage of
benefits than would otherwise be required, and represent benefits which would not otherwise be
required as part of the development process.
1.3 Owner. Owner represents and warrants that it has a legal or equitable
interest in the real property located in City of Santa Ana, California, legally described on Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein, and graphically described on Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated herein. The Property is currently vacant.
1.4 Interest of Owner. Owner hereby represents that it has an equitable and
legal interest in the Property. Owner further hereby represents that it has approved this
Agreement and is authorized to enter into this Agreement.
1.5 Planning Commission - Council Hearings. On November 22, 2004, the
Planning Commission of the City ("Planning Conunission"), after giving notice pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, held a public hearing to consider the Owner's
application for this Agreement. The Planning Conunission reconunended to the City Council of
City that it execute this Agreement. On April 4, 2005, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
("Council"), after providing notice as required by law, held a public hearing to consider the
Owner's application for this Agreement.
1.6 Council Findings. The Council finds that this Agreement is consistent
2
75C-41
with the General Plan, applicable Specific Planes) as well as all other applicable ordinances,
plans, policies and regulations of the City.
NS-
thereafter.
1.7 City Ordinance. On April 18, 2005, the Council adopted Ordinance No.
approving this Agreement. The ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days
2.
DEFINITIONS. In the Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
2.1 "Final Design" means the final design documents for work of public art,
which is set forth in greater detail in paragraph 5.8 of this Agreement.
2.2 "Property Owner" or "Owner" means collectively Coastal Rim
Properties, Inc., a California Corporation, and Geneva Commons, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, being the person, persons, or entity having a legal or equitable interest in the
Property, and includes Coastal Rim Properties, Inc.'s successors in interest.
2.3 "Property" is the real property described in Exhibit A and referred to in
Exhibit B.
2.4 "Project" is the development of the Property as generally set forth in
Environmental Review No. 2002-215, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 (County Map No. 16556),
Conditional Use Pennit 2004-02, Variance No. 2004-11, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-
05 (amending SD-43), and Site Plan Review No. 2004-06.
2.5 Public Art Plan means the conceptual Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The parties recognize that the Plan does not set forth certain elements of the Public Art to be
installed in conjunction with this Project, including the location of the Public Art, and is
therefore subject to refinement prior to the time of installation, by agreement of the Owner and
the City's Executive Director of Planning and Building.
3. EXHIBITS. The following documents referred to in the Agreement are attached
to this Agreement and are identified as follo\vs:
3
75C-42
Exhibit
Desien:Jtion
Des~ription
Referred to
in Se~tion
A
Property Legal Description
1.2
B
Property Graphical Description (Site Plan)
1.2
C
Public Art Plan
2.5
D
Cooperative Agreement for Off-Site Improvements 5.1.1
E
Remaining Offsite Mitigation Measures
5.1.2
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
4.1 Property Subject to the Agreement. Until released pursuant to the
provisions of Section 8.3 below, no property shall be released from this Agreement until
Property Owner has fully performed its obligations arising out of the Agreement.
4.2 Duration of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall for ten (10)
years; provided, however that the Owner may request one two-year extension from the Executive
Director of the Planning and Building Agency, which request shall not be unreasonably denied.
4.3 Assignment. Owner shall have the right to transfer or assign the Property,
in whole or in part, to any person, entity (public or private), partnership, joint venture, firm or
corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that except as
provided in section 4.3.1 of this Agreement, the rights of Owner under this Agreement may not
be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the Council is first obtained and any
transfer or assignment of the rights under this Agreement shall include in writing the assumption
of the duties, obligations, and liabilities arising from this Agreement if the City grants written
consent to transfer the rights. Nor shall the rights of the Owner hereunder be subject to
assignment by attachment, execution, or proceedings under any provision of the Bankruptcy Act,
and any such assignment or transfer shall be wholly void and of no force and effect unless such
written consent thereto be obtained from the Council. Such transfer or assignment shall not
relieve Owner of any duty, obligation or liability to City without the consent of the City.
During the term of this Agreement, any approved assignee or transferee of the
rights under this Agreement shall observe and perform all of the duties and obligations of Owner
contained in this Agreement as such duties and obligations pertain to the portion of the Property
transferred or assigned. Any and all approved successors and assignees of Owner shall have all
of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of Owner under this Agreement. If
the Property is subdivided, any subdivided parcel may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated,
assigned, or transferred to persons for development by them in accordance with the provisions of
4
75C-43
this Agreement. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights of Owner under this Agreement, the
obligations of Owner and the transferee or assignee shall be joint and several.
4.3.1 Permitted Assignments. The prohibition against transfer of ownership of
the Property as defined in section 4.3 above shall not apply to, and the City hereby consents to,
the following:
a. Associations, including .limited partnerships, limited liability
companies, or joint ventures with other entities for the purpose of performing Owner's
obligations under this Agreement, provided Owner retains sole operational and managerial
control.
b. Easements or temporary permits to facilitate development of the
Property.
c. Deeds of trust or other financing documents executed for the
purpose of securing loans to Owner made to finance the development of the Property, and
transfers to any person or entity pursuant to a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure of such
deed of trust or other, similar, financing documents and any subsequent transfer by any such
person or entity.
4.4 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be
amended from time to time or cancelled by the mutual consent of the parties, but only in the
same manner as its adoption by an ordinance as set forth in Government Code Section 65868.
The term "Agreement" or "Development Agreement" as used herein shall include any
amendment properly approved and executed.
4.5 Enforcement. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 65865.4, this
Agreement is enforceable by any party to the Agreement in any manner provided by law. The
remedies provided in Section 8.4 of this Agreement shall not include, and City shall not be liable
for, any action in damages or any costs or attorney's fees resulting from any dispute,
controversy, action or inaction, or any legal proceeding arising out of this Agreement except as
may be provided in Section 6.3(5) of this Agreement.
4.6 Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its
officers, agents, employees, consultants, special counsel, and representatives harmless from
liability: (1) for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of
claims for personal injury, including health, and claims for property damage, which may arise
from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or their contractors, subcontractors,
agents, employees, or other persons acting on their behalf which relates to the Project; and (2)
from any claim that damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by
reason of the terms of or effects arising from this Agreement This hold harmless Agreement
applies to all claims for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief
5
75C-44
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the events referred to in this paragraph or
due by reason of the terms of, or effects, arising from this Agreement or any approval or
certification by the City relating to the Project, regardless of whether or not the City prepared,
supplied or approved this Agreement, plans or specifications, or both, for the Project. The
Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs for the defense of
the City, including fees and costs for special counsel to be selected by the City, regarding any
action by a third party challenging the validity of this Agreement or any approval or certification
by the City relating to the Project, or asserting that damages, just compensation, restitution,
judicial or equitable relief is due to personal or property rights by reason of the terms of, or
effects arising from this Agreement. City may make all reasonable decisions with respect to its
representation in any legal proceeding.
4.7 Binding Effect of Agreement. To the extent not otherwise provided in
Section 4.3 of this Agreement, the burdens of the Agreement bind, and the benefits of the
Agreement inure, to the parties' successors in interest.
4.8 Relationship of the Parties. The contractual relationship between City
and Owner arising out of the Agreement is one of independent contractor and not agency. This
Agreement does not create any third party beneficiary rights.
4.9 Notices. Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication
pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if
delivered in person or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by
telefacsimile or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided in this Section, to the
following persons:
If to City, to:
City Manager
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-31
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
telefacsimile (714) 647-6954
and,
City Attorney
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-29
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
telefacsimile (714) 647-6515
6
75C-45
If to Owner, to:
Coastal Rim Properties, Inc.
Geneva Commons, LLC
139 East Alton Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92707
Attention: Franco Mola
telefacsimile: (714) 708-0873
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party.
Thereafter, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be addressed and
transmitted to the new address. If sent by mail, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other
communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been
deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and
addressed as set forth above. If sent by telefacsimile, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or
other communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours
after the time set forth on the transmission report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine,
addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these time frames, weekends, federal,
state, County, or city holidays shall be excluded.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
5.1 Existing Rules, Regulations and Policies. The rules, regulations and
official policies governing the permitted use(s) of the Property, with respect to and only with
respect to the permitted use(s) density, height, size of structures and intensity of use of the
Property, shall be those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the Property as of the
effective date of this Agreement.
5.1.1 Cooperative Agreement for Off-Site Improvements. The Owner and
the City, together with other parties, have concurrently executed a Cooperative Agreement for
Off-Site Improvements, a tme and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and
incorporated herein by this reference. Owner agrees to comply in all respects with its obligations
under said Agreement, and agrees and acknowledges that a material breach of said agreement
shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
7
75C-46
5.1.2 Remaining Offsite Mitigation Measures. The additional offsite
mitigation measures, beyond those set forth in the agreement referenced in section 5.1.1 of this
Agreement, which must be constructed by Owner are as set forth in Exhibit E to this Agreement.
All funds or costs for offsite mitigation measures required pursuant to the approvals set forth in
section 2.4 of this Agreement shall be paid the earlier of (1) the time called for in the said
approvals, or (2) no later than recordation of the final subdivision map for the Project, whichever
comes first.
5.2 Exclusion from Existing Rules, Regulations and Policies.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65866, and Pardee Construction Co. v.
City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 465,208 Cal.Rptr. 228,690 P.2d 701, City retains the right
to enact police power regulations on matters not covered by section 5.1 of this Agreement,
including without limitation:
a. Regulation of the rate and amount of growth is not abrogated by the City,
in that the parties agree and acknowledge that the City hereby retains the police power to provide
for change in regulations, ordinances, policies, and plans relating to moratoria, building permit
allocations, timing, and sequencing of development and the financing and provision of adequate
public facilities at the time of development.
b. Municipal laws and regulations which do not interfere with Owner's vested
rights to develop and use the Property in accordance with section 5.1 of this Agreement Owner and
its successors and assigns and all persons and entities in occupation of any portion of the Property
shall comply with such non-conflicting laws and regulations as may from time to time be enacted or
amended hereafter. Specifically, but without limitation on the foregoing, such non-conflicting laws
and regulations include the following:
(1) Taxes, assessments, fees and charges, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this Development Agreement;
(2) Building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar codes based upon
uniform codes incorporated by reference into the Santa Ana Municipal Code;
(3) Laws, including zoning code provisions, which regulate the marmer
in which business activities may be conducted or which prohibit any particular type of
business activity on a city-wide basis; and
(4) Procedural rules of general City-wide application.
c. In recognition of the need for City services, including but not limited to
police, fire and park, to meet the demand generated by new, cumulative residential development in
the City, District, Owner will not object to participation in a community facilities district, assessment
8
75C-47
district, or other similar funding mechanism, to provide funds for such services, should any such a
mechanism be established.
d. No vested rights as to any requirements in this section either as to existing
or future regulations, ordinances, policies, and plans are hereby conferred.
5.3 Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. The design
and construction standards and specifications for all Project construction, including without
limitation the facilities set forth in the Public Art Plan, shall be subject to applicable design
standards and guidelines in effect at the time that any development approval shall be sought for
the Project or any unit or structure contained within the Project.
5.4 FAA Approval. Owner shall obtain and maintain, during the term of the
agreement, any and all necessary approvals from the FAA for the Project. Should such
approvals lapse, and not be reinstated or reapproved prior to the issuance of the first building
permit, the City shall have the right to terminate the agreement.
5.4.1. Avigation Easement. The Owner shall, prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the Project, execute an avigation easement in a form approved by the City
Attorney, which shall be recorded with the Recorder of the County of Orange. The avigation
easement shall prohibit any and all claims, actions or lawsuits of any kind or type for nuisance or
interference with use and enjoyment of the underlying Property or the Project including but not
limited to noise, sound, vibration, fumes, fuel particles, dust, discomfort or other environmental
effects incident to aircraft operations as well as any inconvenience or annoyances caused by the
operations of the John Wayne Airport (SNA). The avigation easement shall grant the right to
enter or penetrate into or transmit through the airspace above, on or in the vicinity of the
Property for the unobstructed use, passage or operation of all types of aircraft and the right to
create or generate all things and consequences to the Property that may be, or may be alleged to
be, incident to or resulting from the use of said Airspace and any and all related aircraft and
airport operation. The City shall be the benefited party in the avigation easement, but said
easement shall be assignable by the City to a third party, including but not limited to John
Wayne Airport (SNA), without consent of Owner.
5.4.2. Limit on Fast Food and Take Out Restaurants. At no time shall the
Owner permit more than 3,000 square feet of the retail space in the Project to be devoted to "fast
food" and "take out" restaurants. For purposes of this Agreement, a restaurant shall not be
deemed to be a "fast food" or "take out" restaurant if it provide sit-down dining areas and
exclusive table service for ordering and delivering meals and beverages, and take out service
ancillary to such services.
5.5 Future Discretionary Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent the
City, when considering requests for discretionary approvals not covered by Section 5.1 of this
Agreement subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement, from applying new rules,
9
75C-48
regulations, and policies which are applicable to the Property, including but not limited to,
changes in the general plans, specific plans, zoning, subdivision or building regulations, nor shall
this Agreement prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent
applications for land use entitlements based on such existing or new rules, regulations, and/or
policies; provided however, that such new rules, regulations, and official policies are of general
application to all development within the City and are not imposed solely with respect to the
subject property. In addition, this Agreement shall not prevent the City from exercising its
police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This police power,
exercised in accordance with Section 5.2 of this Agreement, is paramount to any rights or
obligations created or existing between the parties.
5.6 Processing Fees. All fees and charges intended to cover City costs
associated with processing development of the Property, including but not limited to fees and
charges for applications, processing, inspections, plan review, plan processing, and/or
environmental review, which are existing or may be revised or adopted during the term of this
Agreement, shall apply to the development of the Property.
5.7 Amendments or Additions to City"ide Fee Programs. This Agreement
shall not preclude the inclusion of and changes to fee programs, taxes whether special or general,
or assessments (hereafter collectively referred to as "fees") adopted by the City after the
effective date of this Agreement, \vhich shall be applicable to the Project or the Property
provided that they (1) are standard fees applicable to all development in the City (although actual
fee rates may vary within the City where bona fide Citywide fee zones have been established),
(2) are not applicable primarily or only to this Project, or (3) are not imposed to either (a)
mitigate, offset or compensate for Project impacts which were analyzed in the negative
declaration prepared for the Project, or (b) duplicate any project design features conditions of
approval, Agreements, or mitigation measures contained in the Development Plan or this
Agreement.
5.8 Development, Construction and Completion of Work of Public Art.
In consideration for the extraordinary and significant benefits set forth in this Section, the Owner
has been legally vested under paragraph 5.1 with regard to the permitted uses ofland, density,
and intensity of use, Owner shall include within the Project at a prime location visible to the
public, a single or grouped permanent work of public art (the "Public Art"). The Public Art
shall conform in all respects to Exhibit C of this Agreement.
10
75C-49
Facilities specified in section 5.8.1 below must be designed and/or constructed
prior to the triggering event. In the event that Owner fails to meet either of the triggering events
set forth in section 5.8.1., below, Owner shall pay the City an amount equivalent to one-half of
one percent (0.5%) of the estimated value of its Project, as conclusively specified by the
Executive Director of the City's Planning and Building Agency, to be used by the City to acquire
other public art for other locations within the City, in which case, Owner will not be considered
in default under this Agreement.
5.8.1 \Vork of Public Art.
Item, to He Complete
Trieeering Event (F: g , New rr,e or New Area)
1. Submit Final Design of Public Art.
Final design must conform to Public Art
Plan.
Prior to issuance of first Building Permit or five
(5) years from the effective date of this
Agreement, whichever comes first.
2. Install Public Art.
Prior to City's issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for any building or structure, or the
expiration of the term of this Agreement,
whichever comes first.
With respect to the Final Design, Owner shall complete all construction and
development, shall submit all plans, drawings, and other documents, and perform all of its
obligations under this Agreement within the times specified above. During periods of
construction of the work of public art encompassed in the Public Art Plan, Owner shall submit to
the City a written report of the progress of the construction when and as reasonably requested by
the City. The report shall be in such form and detail as may be reasonably required by the City,
and shall include a reasonable number of construction photographs (if requested) taken from the
last report by Owner. Development scheduling or date or times of performance may be subject
to revision from time to time if first mutually agreed to in writing. Such revisions do not
constitute amendments requiring further notice and public hearing.
5.8.2. Inclusionary Housing Fee. Owner shall pay to the City the sum of
$3,000.00 per residential unit as a condition of issuance of each building permit. This fee shall
be used by the City for planning (including but not limited to preparation of one or more
elements of its general plan or for zoning amendments), conceptual design, final design, bid
preparation, award of bid, property appraisal, property acquisition, relocation, lost goodwill,
and/or construction of new or substantially rehabilitated existing affordable housing in the City.
Alternatively, O\vner may at any time cease making such payments if it enters into an agreement
with the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana to either (i) newly
construct or rehabilitate and sell or lease, with affordability covenants as required by State law,
42 inclusionary housing units (that being 15% of the housing units proposed for the Project as
11
75C-50
provided by Health & Safety Code section 33413(b)(2)(A)), and/or (b) provide for up to sixty
percent (60%) of these inclusionary units to moderate income residents at its Project, consistent
with Health & Safety Code section 33413(b)(2).
5.8.3 No Redevelopment Subsidy. The Owner shall not be entitled to request
or accept any agreement with the Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency for economic,
debt service payments, or other assistance for the development of the Project. Failure to comply
with this provision shall be deemed in and of itself to constitute a failure to in good faith comply
with terms or conditions of this Agreement pursuant to the terms of Government Code section
65865.1.
5.8.4. In-Lieu Park Development Fee. The Owner shall pay an in-lieu park
development fee amount equivalent to the Park Dedication requirement referenced in the site
plan review letter for Site Plan Review No. 2004-06. The fee shall be assessed at the value of
$35.50 per square foot of area to be dedicated pursuant to the standard established by section
34-204 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, as specified in said City's site plan review
letter; provided, however that the fee may be increased yearly beginning twelve months
following the effective date of this agreement, by the average rate of increase in land costs in the
City of Santa Ana, as that increase is established by the "Construction Cost Index-Los Angeles,"
published by Engineering News-Record, or substitute index chosen by the Executive Director of
Planning and Building should that Index be discontinued. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance
of each building permit. The City shall use said fees for new parkland, capital improvements at
existing parks, and deferred maintenance at existing parks (up to a maximum of fifty percent of
amount of the fee), and shall be utilized by the City in the Quadrant of the City (as set forth in
the City's Park A&D Fee program) in which the Project is located. Ifnot used or appropriated
this fee shall be returned to Developer, consistent with the provisions of (and subject to the
exceptions contained within) the California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code S 66000 et
seq.
5.8.5 Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC&R's) must be provided and approved by the Planning and Building Agency's
Executive Director for the project prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Such CC&R's
must contain at a minimum, the following:
(I) No more than four residents per unit, except that for three-bedroom
units, there shall be no more than five residents per unit.
(2) To the extent permitted by law, all residential and live-work units
shall remain owner occupied and shall not allow rental of the entire unit.
(3) No home occupancy shall be pem1itted in a unit, except III
accordance with section 41-192 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
12
75C-51
(4) Assigrunent of repair of perimeter walls and common areas,
including landscaping, will be specified in the CC&R's in the event of
damage.
(5) Disclosure and release: CC&R's shall provide notice to prospective
owners of the urban character of the City and this area, including but not
limited to the permitted uses of the property and buildings in the immediate
area of the development (e.g., MacArthur Place, Griffin Towers, and
surrounding property zoned and/or devoted to commercial use), and shall
provide a release of all claims against the City which may arise from or
relate to the disclosed matters.
(6) Terms and Content:
1. CC&R's are to be in effect in perpetuity.
ii. Any proposed modifications to the CC&R's will require
approval by the Agency's Executive Director.
ll1. CC&R's shall provide a significant financial penalty (i.e., the
maximum permitted by law) that shall be imposed by the Home
Owner's Association to any member who violates these provisions
5.9 Responsibility For Costs of Work Of Public Art. The City and Owner
agree that Owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with the design, construction,
maintenance and repair of the work of public art provided for in the Public Art Plan.
5.10 Moratoria. Moratoria enacted by the City for the public health, safety,
and welfare, which are imposed on the Property or Project, shall toll the time periods set forth in
this Agreement.
5.11 City to Receive Contract Documents. Owner shall furnish City, upon
written request, copies of contracts and supporting documents relating to the work of public art.
5.13 Conditions of Discretionary Approvals. The requirements imposed as
conditions of any discretionary approval received through the City's existing regulatory process
shall be governed by the terms of those approvals, and in no event shall such conditions be
affected by the termination, cancellation, rescission, revocation, or default or expiration of this
Agreement.
5.14 Compliance With Governmental Requirements. Owner shall carry out
the design, construction, and operation of the Project in substantial conformity with all
13
75C-52
applicable laws, ordinances, statutes, codes, rules, regulations, orders, and decrees of the United
States, the State of California, the County of Orange, the City, or any other political subdivision
in which the Property is located, and of any other political subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality exercising jurisdiction over the City, the Owner or the Property, including all
applicable federal, state, and local occupation, safety and health laws, rules, regulations and
standards, applicable state and labor standards, applicable prevailing 'wage requirements, the
City zoning and development standards, City permits and approvals. building. phmbing.
mechanical and electri;::al codes, as tr.ey apply to the Propeu:y and t:le Proje~[, a::d all other
provisions of the City and its Municipal Code (as they apply to the Property and the Project), and
all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including, without the limitation,
the Americans With Disability Act, 42 U.S.c. S 12101 et seq., Government Code S 4450 et seq.,
and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code S 51 et seq. ("Governmental Requirements").
6. ANNUAL REVIEW.
6.1 City and Owner Responsibilities. City shall, at least every twelve (12)
months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial
compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65865.1, as amended, Owner shall have the duty to demonstrate by substantial evidence its good
faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement at the periodic review.
6.2 Review Letter. If Owner is found to be in compliance with the
Agreement after annual review, City shall, upon written request by Owner, issue a Review Letter
to Owner (the "Letter") stating that based upon information known or made known to the City
Council, the City Planning Commission and/or the City Planning Director, the Agreement
remains in effect and Owner is not in default. Owner may record the Letter in the Official
Records of the County of Orange.
6.3 Failure of Periodic Review. City's failure to review at least annually
Owner's compliance with the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement shall not constitute or be
asserted by any party as a breach of the Agreement by Owner or City.
7. DEFAULT.
7.1 Events of Default. Property Owner is in default under this Agreement
upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(1) If a warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by
Property Owner to the City in conjunction with the Project is false or proves to have been false
in any material respect when it was made;
(2) A finding and determination made by the City following a periodic
review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 that upon the
14
75C-53
basis of substantial evidence the Property Owner has not complied in good faith with one or
more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement;
(3) Failure to comply with Governmental Requirements;
(4) Any other event, condition, act, or omission of Owner, or of its
office~s, agen:s, t:'IT,ployees, consul:2..nts, special counsel, or representatives, which materially
i~:.~C'r~~'=';'3 V:1 :::"_ ::..~:; inter:: 2~::d object>.:cs of L::iS .~g;e~Inent.
7.2 Procedure upon Default.
(1) Upon the occurrence of default, City shall give Property Owner
(the "defaulting party") thirty (30) days written notice specifying the nature of the alleged
default and, when appropriate, the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured.
After proper notice and expiration of said thirty (30) day cure period without cure, City may
terminate or amend this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City as to
all defaults that may be cured within said thirty (30) day cure period. For defaults that cannot be
cured within said thirty (30) day cure period, City may terminate or amend this Agreement in
accordance with the procedure adopted by the City should at any time Owner fail to diligently
proceed in curing the default. Failure or delay in giving notice of default shall not constitute a
waiver of any default, nor shall it change the time of default.
(2) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by
Property Owner, if on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or terminate this
Agreement.
(3) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a
third person.
(4) An express repudiation, refusal, or renunciation of the contract, if
the same is in writing and signed by the Property Owner, shall be sufficient to terminate this
Agreement and a hearing on the matter shall not be required.
(5) Adoption of a law or other governmental activity making
performance by the Owner unprofitable or more difficult or more expensive does not excuse the
performance of the obligation by the Property Owner.
(6) All other remedies at law or in equity which are not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Agreement are available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a
breach.
7.3 Damages upon Termination. In no event shall Property Owner be
entitled to any damages against City upon lawful termination of this Agreement.
15
75C-54
7.4 Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies,
either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default or breach, to
specifically enforce any covenants or Agreements set forth in the Agreement, or to enjoin any
threatened or attempted violation of the Agreement; or to obtain any remedies consistent with the
purpose of the Agreement. Legal actions shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County
of Orange, State of California, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of
California, S01j~hc~:1 Division.
8. ENCUl\IBR-\NCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY.
8.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit
Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion
of the Property or any improvement on the Property by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other
security device securing financing with respect to the Property or its improvement.
8.2 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. The mortgagee of a mortgage
or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the Property or any part thereof and their
successors and assigns shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive from City
written notification of any default by Owner of the performance of Owner's obligations under the
Agreement which has not been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of default.
8.3 Releases. City agrees that upon written request of Property Owner and
payment of all fees and performance of the requirements and conditions required of Owner by
this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, City may execute and deliver
to Owner appropriate release(s) of further obligations imposed by this Agreement in form and
substance acceptable to the Orange County Recorder or as may otherwise be necessary to effect
the release.
9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
9.1 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine
gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive. If there is more than
one signer of this Agreement, their obligations are joint and several.
9.2 Entire Agreement, Waivers and Amendments. This Agreement
constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set
forth in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiation or previous Agreements
between the parties respecting this Agreement. All waivers of the provision of this Agreement
must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City or of Owner. All
amendments to this Agreement must be in writing signed by the appropriate authorities of City
and Owner, in a form suitable for recording in the Official Records of Orange County,
California. Within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Agreement, a copy of this
Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California. Upon the
16
75C-55
completion of performance of this Agreement or its revocation or termination, an appropriate
Certificate of Completion acknowledging such occurrence signed by the appropriate agents of
OVv"ller and City shall be recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California.
9.3 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood by the
parties that: (a) the Project is a private development for purposes of Government Code Section
65864 et seq.; (b) City has no interest in or responsibilities for or duty to third parties concerning
any improvements to the Property or in connection with the Project; and (c) Owner shall have
the full power and exclusive control of the Property subject to the obligations of Owner set forth
in this Agreement.
9.4 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth in Section 1 of this
Agreement are part of this Agreement.
9.5 Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and
reference only, and shall not define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify, or aid in the
interpretation, construction, or meaning of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
9.6 Consent. Where the consent or approval of a party is required in or
necessary under this Agreement, the consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
9.7 Covenant of Cooperation. The parties shall cooperate with, deal with
each other in good faith, and assist each other in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement.
9.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this
Agreement of which time is an element.
9.9 Conflicts of Law. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations
enacted after this Agreement has been entered into or the action or inaction of any other affected
governmental jurisdiction prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this
Agreement or require changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by the City, the parties shall
provide the other party with written notice of such state or federal restriction, provide a copy of
such regulation or policy, and a statement of conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. The
parties shall, within thirty (30) days, meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to
modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Thereafter,
regardless of whether the parties reach an Agreement on the effect of such federal or state law or
regulation upon the Agreement, the matter shall be scheduled for hearing before the Council.
Public notice of such hearing shall be given pursuant to Government Code Section 65854.5. The
City Council, at such hearing, shall determine the exact modification or suspension which shall
be necessitated by such federal or state law or regulation pursuant to Government Code Section
65869.5. At the hearing Owner shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony.
17
75C-56
9.10 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be
recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, within ten (10)
days following the effective date of this Agreement.
18
75C-57
IN WITNESS Wl-7P'REOF, this Agreement has been executed by the City of
Santa Ana and by Property Owner.
Dated thisatday of ~;1A~ , 2002.
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
By
DAVID N. REAM
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
By
JOSEPH W. FLETCHER
City Attorney
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC.,
A California Corporation
Franco Mola
Its Chief Executive Officer
GENEVA COMMONS, LLC,
A California Limited Liability Company
f/L~~~~)
19
75C-58
STATE OF CALIFOR1'-rIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On this day of , 200_, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the City Manager of THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, the charter city
that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who executed the within
instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that
such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution
of its City Council.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On this day of ,200_, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the of ., the
that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who
executed the within instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to
its bylaws or a resolution of its Board.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
20
75C-59
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On this day of , 200_, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the City Manager of THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, the charter city
that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who executed the within
instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that
such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution
of its City Council.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
21
75C-60
EXHIBIT A
Property Legal Description
To be inserted
22
75C-61
EXHIBIT B
Property Site Plan
To be inserted
23
75C-62
EXHIBIT C
Public Art Plan
1. Public art valued at one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total Project building permit
valuation is required. Public art shall be comprised of a single art piece or grouped art pieces
to be placed at a final location to be determined as specified in paragraph 2.5 of this
Agreement. The public art should invite participation and interaction, inspire, add local
meaning, interpret the community by revealing its culture or history, and/or capture or
reinforce the unique character of the new place. A comprehensive Public Art Plan indicating
compliance with this requirement, and which proposes specific pieces of art for specific
locations or applications, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the
completion of the project's first phase. All public art approved by the Planning Commission
in the Public Art Plan shaIl be completely instaIled as provided in paragraph 5.8.1 of this
Agreement.
2. Art should be sited to complement features such as plaza or architectural components so that
the art is an integral part of the development site.
3. Public art should be constructed using durable materials and finishes including but not
limited to stone or metal.
4. No art piece provided pursuant to the public art requirement shall include advertising of any
type, including but not limited to products, services or businesses.
5. AIl public art provided pursuant to the public art requirement shaIl be properly maintained at
all times, be free of any graffiti and shall not incorporate any flashing or distracting form of
illumination.
6. All art pieces approved and installed pursuant to the Public Art Plan shaIl remain on the
project site and may not be removed without the approval of the Planning Commission.
7. Expenses Not AIlowed from Art Allocation
1. Expenses to locate the artist (e.g., airfare for artist interviews, etc.)
II. Architect and Landscape Architect fees.
Ill. Landscaping around a sculpture that is not included as part of the artist's sculpture
furnishings, including, but not limited to, functional structures, prefabricated water or
electrical features not created by the artist, and ornamental enhancements.
IV. Utility fees associated with activating electronic or water generated artwork.
24
75C-63
v. Lighting elements not integral to the illumination of the art piece.
VI. Publicity, public relations, photographs, educational materials, business letterhead or
logos bearing artwork image.
vii. Dedication ceremonies, including sculpture unveilings or grand openings.
25
75C-64
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
THIS Agreement is entered into this day of , 2005, by and between
the SANDPOINTE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INe., a California, non-profit public
benefit and federaI501(c)(3) corporation ("Sandpointe"), the NEXUS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION/CENTRAL DIVISION, INe. a California corporation and The Grand Plan 2,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (collectively referred to herein as "Nexus"),
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation ("Geneva Commons"), the
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a public body
corporate and politic (the "Agency"), and the CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal
corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California
(the "City").
WITNESSETH
A. Nexus has proposed constructing at Hutton Center a five level residential
condominium project, two 23-residentiallevel condominium high-rise and one 24-residentiallevel
condominium (for a total not to exceed 835 condominium units), together with ancillary retail not
to exceed 14,000 square feet (the "Nexus Project").
B. Geneva Commons has proposed constructing at the northeast comer of MacArthur
Boulevard and Imperial Promenade an approximately 278-unit condominium project consisting of
an 18-residentiallevel high rise project and an eight-story building, together with ancillary retail
(the "Geneva Commons Project").
C. Sandpointe is a non-profit corporation that serves as a conduit between the
Sandpointe Neighborhood ("Neighborhood") and outside community and political interests.
Sandpointe Neighborhood is a residential neighborhood of single family and some multi-family
homes in the southeast portion of Santa Ana. The Sandpointe Neighborhood consists of
approximately 800 residences. Sandpointe does not have the authority to bind any individual
resident ofthe Sandpointe Neighborhood.
D. The Agency is a community redevelopment agency, as that term is defined in
California Health & Safety Code S 33100. In 1982, the Agency created the South Main
Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"), and Nexus and Geneva Commons are located within
the Project Area.
E. Sandpointe has identified certain physical improvements needed in the area of the
Neighborhood that are necessitated by or would in some way offset the impact of the two
development projects. Nexus and Geneva Commons desire to contribute towards the cost and/or
construction ofthose improvements to the Sandpointe neighborhood in addition to and to
EXHIBIT D
1
75C-65
supplement the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed by the City oftheir
respective developments. Those improvements are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made
a part hereofby this reference ("Improvements").
F. The Agency is willing to assist in the funding ofthe improvements but only from a
portion ofthe tax increment actually generated by the Nexus and Geneva Commons Projects and to
fund specified improvements that would reduce blight and benefit the Project Area.
G. The City's participation in this Agreement is limited to coordination of funding
and/or construction of certain, herein specified publicly owned improvements.
H. Nexus has agreed to construct some ofthe improvements, and pay for the
construction of others, as more fully set forth below (''Nexus Improvements").
1. Geneva Commons has agreed to pay for a portion of the Nexus Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Nexus shall construct and/or fund the improvements identified as ''Nexus
Improvements" in Exhibit A hereto according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit B to this
Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Nexus shall be entitled to
full use ofthe funds deposited in the Nexus Escrow to undertake the Nexus Improvements.
B. In consideration for Nexus' agreement to construct and/or fund the Nexus
Improvement, Geneva Commons agrees to contribute a sum equal to its pro-rata share of residential
units between itself and Nexus (which is currently twenty-five percent (25%) pursuant to those
numbers set forth in sections A and B ofthe Recitals above) ofthe cost of the Nexus
Improvements, towards the cost thereof payable at the time called for below. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if Nexus has not executed this Agreement prior to the date this Agreement becomes
binding on Geneva Commons (which the parties agree shall conclusively deemed to be the first day
upon which this Agreement has been executed by Geneva Commons, the City, the Agency and
Sandpointe), then Geneva Commons pro-rata share contribution to the Nexus Escrow shall be
conclusively fixed at twenty-five (25%) regardless ofthe actual number of residential units
approved for it and Nexus.
C. Ifthe entire Nexus and Geneva Commons Projects are constructed, Agency shall
cause the construction ofthe improvements identified as "Publicly-Owned Improvements" in
Exhibit A hereto according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference. The parties acknowledge and agree that the total cost of
the publicly owned improvements, including studies, design and overhead, shall not exceed Five
Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).
EXHIBIT D
2
75C-66
2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. Nexus shall, within sixty (60) days of execution ofthis Agreement, open an escrow
account at First American Title Insurance Company, 2 First American Way, Santa Ana, California,
or an equivalent escrow company approved in advance by Geneva Commons and Sandpointe, for
deposit of funds to be used to pay for the Nexus Improvements (referred to herein as the "Nexus
Escrow").
B. Sandpointe shall deposit $1,000.00 into the Nexus Escrow on the Escrow
Submission Date no later than the date the of the first payment made pursuant to paragraph 2.D. of
this Agreement.
C. Prior to the deadline specified in paragraph 2.D. of this Agreement, Nexus and
Geneva Commons shall meet and confer in good faith to agree upon the estimated cost of the
Nexus Improvements. If, at any time, either Geneva Commons or Nexus determines that such
agreement is not possible, then the objecting party shall submit its dispute in writing, together with
any evidence upon which it relies to the Executive Director of the City's Public Works Agency and
the other party. Within fifteen (15) days of its receipt of said notice, the non-objecting party shall
then have fifteen (15) days to submit any response it has to the City and the objecting party. The
Executive Director ofthe City's Public Works Agency or designee shall then, within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the response, if any, or the expiration of said deadline, inform both Geneva
Commons and Nexus in writing of the final determination ofthe estimated total cost, which all
parties agree shall be conclusive and binding upon both Nexus and Geneva Commons. Thereafter,
Nexus and Geneva Commons shall deposit their respective shares of the estimated cost of the
Nexus Improvements as set forth in paragraph loB. ofthis Agreement, less $1,000.00, into the
Nexus Escrow no later than the date specified in paragraph 2.D. of this Agreement.
D. Nexus shall pay into the Nexus Escrow no later than (i) the date the first building
permit is issued by the City for the Nexus Project, or (ii) a date ninety (90) days after the issuance
of entitlements to Nexus, provided no litigation or referendum petition challenging Nexus has been
filed and served on the City, whichever comes later. Geneva Commons shall pay into the Nexus
Escrow no later than (i) the date the first building permit is issued by the City for the Geneva
Commons Project, or (ii) a date ninety (90) days after the issuance of entitlements to Geneva
Commons, provided no litigation or referendum petition challenging Geneva Commons has been
filed and served on the City, whichever comes later.
EXHIBIT D
:1
75C-67
E. The Agency shall pay the City its cost incurred by the City for the Publicly-Owned
Improvements set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement; provided, however that total commitment
by the City and Agency toward the Publicly-Owned Improvements shall not exceed FNE
MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00). Ifthe items set forth as Publicly-Owned Improvements in
Exhibit A are found to cost more than this sum, then the Agency shall, in the exercise of its sole and
absolute discretion, limit or eliminate Publicly-Owned Improvements set forth in Exhibit A;
provided, however, that the Agency shall proceed with the Publicly-Owned Improvements in the
order as set forth in said Exhibit.
3. NEXUS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. Nexus shall prepare and submit construction drawings and related documents for
items listed on Exhibit A to the City for review (including, but not limited to, architectural review)
and written approval as and at the times established in the Schedule of Performance set forth in
Exhibit B to this Agreement. The construction drawings and related documents shall be submitted
in two stages: (i) the Preliminary Site Plans and (ii) Final Site Plans.
B. During the preparation of all drawings and plans, City staff and Nexus shall hold
regular progress meetings to coordinate the preparation of, submission to, and review of
construction plans and related documents by the City. The City staff and Nexus shall communicate
and consult informally as frequently as is necessary to insure that the formal submittal of any
documents to the City can receive prompt and speedy consideration.
C. Any revision or correction of plans required by the City shall be deemed approved
by the Agency, Geneva Commons and Sandpointe.
D. Neither the City, the Agency, Sandpointe or Geneva Commons shall have any
ownership interest in, or any right to use, the Preliminary Site Plans or the Final Site Plans
submitted by Nexus, nor shall the City, the Agency, Sandpointe or Geneva Commons authorize the
right to use any such plans or drawings to any person or entity.
4. APPROVAL OF NEXUS PLANS, DRAWINGS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. The City shall have the right of reasonable review (including, but not limited to,
architectural review) of all plans, drawings and related documents including any proposed changes
therein. The City shall approve or disapprove such plans, drawings, and related (and any proposed
changes therein) within the times established in the Schedule of Performance set forth in Exhibit B
hereto. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
B. Any disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval. The City shall
have the right to disapprove, in its reasonable discretion, any of the Final Plans if the Final Plans do
not conform to the Approved Plans, the approved Preliminary Plans or do not conform to Exhibit A
to this Agreement, or are incomplete.
EXHIBIT D
4
75C-68
C. The City shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval ofthe Final Plans within
sixty (60) days of receipt of copies of such Final Plans. Failure to respond within this sixty (60)
day period shall not be grounds for resubmittal.
D. Nexus, upon receipt of a notice of disapproval, shall revise such portions of the
plans, drawings or related documents in a manner that reasonably satisfies the reasons for
disapproval and shall resubmit such revised portions to the City as soon as possible after receipt of
the notice of disapproval. Plans, drawings, and related documents receiving City approval shall not
be subsequently disapproved. Nexus shall ensure that all of its plans, drawings and related
documents comply with all Governmental Requirements.
5. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEXUS
IMPROVEMENTS
a. Nexus shall construct and/or fund, utilizing the Nexus Escrow, the improvements in
conformance with Exhibit A to this Agreement and the approved Final Plans. To the extent that the
cost ofthe Nexus Improvements, constructed in conformance with Exhibit A to this Agreement and
the approved Final Plans, exceeds the funds in the Nexus Escrow, Nexus and Geneva Commons
shall be solely responsible for said costs, with each responsible for any additional cost to the same
percentage as is set forth in paragraph 1.B. ofthis Agreement. Nexus shall complete or fund, as the
case may be, the construction of the improvements in conformance with the schedule set forth in
Exhibit B to this Agreement.
b. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Block Wall identified as Item No.1 on
Exhibit A will be constructed on the properties of dozens of individual homeowners in the
Sandpointe neighborhood, none of whom are parties to this Agreement. The parties agree to use
their best efforts to obtain permission of each ofthese individual property owners to construct this
Block Wall and to permit the City to permanently maintain the climbing ivy along the exterior of
the wall. However, it is the parties understanding and intent that should any property owner refuse
to agree to permit the construction and/or exterior ivy maintenance ("hold outs"), that the Block
Wall will be constructed regardless of any hold-outs, and that Nexus shall construct the Block Wall
in such fashion as to join the Block Wall to existing wall segments owned by hold outs and
minimize any negative aesthetic impact caused by such hold outs. Nexus agrees to hold Sandpointe
and its officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from any claim by any and all property
owners including such hold outs arising out ofthe construction ofthe Block Wall in which
Sandpointe, or its officers, directors, employees or agents are named. Nexus shall be permitted to
select counsel to defend Sandpointe at the expense of Nexus. In the event of a potential conflict of
interest between Sandpointe and Nexus, Sandpointe shall have the right to select independent
counsel. All fees and costs of independent counsel selected by Sandpointe for defense of any claim
arising out of or relating to any claims described herein shall be paid by Nexus on behalf of
Sandpointe.
EXHIBIT D
:)
75C-69
6. AGENCY NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLICLY OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy pursuant to the California Building Code
for (i) all residential units in a minimum of two of the three high-rise towers in the Nexus Project,
and (ii) all residential units in the Geneva Commons Project, the Agency shall give the City a
notice to proceed to design and construct the Publicly-Owned Improvements as set forth in Exhibit
A. If only a portion ofthe residential units have been constructed within five (5) years ofthe date
of the Commencement Date, then the Agency shall only give the City a notice to proceed with a
partial list of items as set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement. The Agency's obligation to pay for
the Publicly-Owned improvements, and the City's obligation to complete these Publicly-Owned
Improvements, or any part thereof, shall be limited by the Agency's ability to fund said work from
the project-specific tax increment generated by the Nexus Project; provided, however, that City and
Agency shall construct item no. I.a. on the list of Publicly-Owned Improvements in Exhibit A to
this Agreement regardless ofthe project-specific tax increment received by the Agency.
7. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY
OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
a. City shall construct the Publicly-Owned Improvements in conformance with the
schedule set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement and the approved Final Plans; provided, however,
that the Agency and City shall have no obligation once the cost of the Publicly-Owned
Improvements exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00). If the cost ofthe Publicly-Owned
Improvements, including all design, administrative and construction costs exceed $5,000,000.00,
then the City shall construct only that portion ofthe Publicly Owned Improvements as specified in
Exhibit C in the exercise of the Agency's sole and absolute discretion.
b. City shall, at the conclusion ofthe plant establishment phase specified in Exhibit B,
additionally maintain the climbing vines and irrigation constructed by Nexus along the outside of
the block wall, referenced in item no. I on Exhibit A hereto, but the City's obligation to maintain
the climbing vines shall only apply to those property owners who execute a fa9ade easement with
the City in a form approved by the City Attorney permitting the City to maintain said climbing
vines and indemnifying the City from any liability caused by said climbing vines and/or irrigation.
Sandpointe shall be responsible for obtaining signatures from these individual homeowners.
8. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION DURING CONSTRUCTION; BODILY
INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE
A. From and after the Effective Date, Nexus and Geneva Commons agree to and shall
indemnify and hold Agency, City and Sandpointe, and their respective officers, directors, agents
and employees harmless from and against all damages to property or injuries to or death of any
person or persons, including employees or agents of Agency or City, and shall defend, indemnify
EXHIBIT D
o
75C-70
and save Agency, City and Sandpointe; and their officers, agents, and employees, from any and all
claims, demands, suits, actions, or proceedings of any kind or nature, including, but not by way of
limitation, workers' compensation claims of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from
the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Nexus or Geneva Commons or their respective
employees, agents or subcontractors. For itself and no other, Sandpointe agrees to hold harmless
Agency, City and their respective officers, directors, agents and employees from and against all
damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, in any way resulting from the
negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Nexus or Geneva Commons, or their respective
employees, agents or subcontractors. This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to
obligate Sandpointe, its officers, directors or agents, or the Neighborhood to defend, indemnify or
to answer in any way for the Agency the City or their respective officers, directors, agents or
employees for such claims.
B. Prior to the commencement of construction, Nexus or any other party working
within the real property ofthe City or Agency, shall obtain at its sole cost and file with the City and
Agency, and maintain for the period covered by this Agreement, a policy or policies ofliability
insurance or a certificate of such insurance, consistent with this Agreement, naming Agency, the
City and Sandpointe, their officers, directors, agents, and employees, as insured or additional
insured, which provides coverage not less than that provided in the form of a comprehensive
general liability insurance policy against liability for any and all claims and suits for damages or
injuries to persons or property resulting from or arising out of operations of Nexus, its officers,
directors, agents, or employees. Said policy or policies of insurance shall provide coverage for both
bodily injury and property damage in not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined
single limit, or its equivalent. Said policy or policies shall also contain a provision that no
termination, cancellation, or change of coverage of insured shall be effective until after thirty (30)
days notice thereof has been given in writing to City and Agency. Nexus shall give to Agency and
City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Nexus operations
hereunder. Nexus may procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds and
amounts of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection in the
prosecution of the work. All insurance policies shall be written by responsible and solvent
insurance companies and shall include an additional insured endorsement in substantially the form
of Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
9. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
Nexus shall carry out the design, construction, and operation ofthe Nexus Improvements in
substantial conformity with all applicable laws, ordinances, statutes, codes, rules, regulations,
orders, and decrees ofthe United States, the State of Cali fomi a, the County of Orange, the City, or
any other political subdivision in which the Property is located, and of any other political
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality exercising jurisdiction over the City or Nexus, including all
applicable federal, state, and local occupation, safety and health laws, rules, regulations and
standards, applicable state and labor standards, applicable prevailing wage requirements, the City
zoning and development standards, City permits and approvals, building, plumbing, mechanical
EXHIBIT D
7
75C-71
and electrical codes, and all other provisions of the City and its Municipal Code, and all applicable
disabled and handicapped access requirements, including, without the limitation, the Americans
With Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. S 12101 et seq., Government Code S 4450 et seq., and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act, Civil Code S 51 et seq. ("Governmental Requirements").
10. DEF AUL TS AND REMEDIES
If any party defaults in performance of its obligations, covenants or agreements hereunder,
the defaulting party shall be entitled to cure the default in accordance with this section. The injured
party shall give written notice of default to the party in default, specifying the default complained of
by the injured party. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor
shall it change the time of default. The defaulting party must, within thirty (30) days, following
service of said notice, commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete
such cure, correction, or remedy with reasonable diligence.
11. INSTITUTION OF LEGAL ACTIONS
Subject to the provisions of Section 13 hereof, in addition to any other rights or remedies, either
party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default to recover damages for any
default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
12. APPLICABLE LAW
This Agreement and all questions relating to its validity, interpretation, performance, and
enforcement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity,
interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be
determined and governed by the laws ofthe State of California. All parties further agree that
Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or
arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this Agreement.
13. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ARE CUMULATIVE
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the
rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of
such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any
other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.
EXHIBIT D
R
75C-72
14. DAMAGES
In the event that the Agency or City is liable for damages to Nexus, Sandpointe and/or Geneva
Commons, such liability shall not exceed costs incurred by Nexus, Sandpointe and/or Geneva
Commons in the performance of this Agreement and shall not extend to compensation for loss of
future income, profits or assets.
15. NOTICES, DEMAND AND COMMUNICATIONS
Formal notices, demands and communications between the parties shall be sufficiently given if
dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal
offices ofthe Agency and the Developer as designated below. Such written notices, demands and
communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from
time to time designate by mail as provided in this section.
City:
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Attn: Steve Harding, Executive Director
Phone: (714) 667-2700
Fax: (714) 973-1461
with copy to:
City Attorney
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-29
Santa Ana, California 92702
Agency:
Community Development Agency
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-25
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Attn: Patricia C. Whitaker, Executive Director
Phone: (714) 647-5360
Fax: (714) 647-6549
with copy to:
Agency General Counsel
Community Redevelopment Agency ofthe
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-29
Santa Ana, California 92702
EXHIBIT D
9
75C-73
Sandpointe:
Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 27122
Santa Ana, California 92799
Attention: Bob Black
Nexus:
Nexus Development Corporation/Central Division, Inc.
The Grand Plan 2
1 MacArthur Place, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
Attention: Cory W. Alder
Geneva Commons:
Coastal Rim Properties, Inc.
139 East Alton Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92707
Attention: Franco Mola
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other parties. Thereafter, any
notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the
new address. If sent by mail, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be
effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United
States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. If
sent by facsimile, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be effective
or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours after the time set forth on the transmission
report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, addressed as set forth above. For purposes of
calculating these time frames, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays hall be excluded.
EXHIBIT D
10
75C-74
16. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall take effect from and after the date of adoption and approval by the
City and the Agency pursuant to official action of the governing bodies thereof and shall be
effective until completion and acceptance of the Nexus Improvements and Publicly-Owned
Improvements. If Geneva Commons is approved by the City and Nexus is not, then Geneva
Commons shall take over Nexus' obligations to construct a portion ofthe Nexus Improvements
under this Agreement, but shall be required to (i) meet and confer with the Agency and Sandpointe,
and using the order ofthe Nexus Improvements specified in Exhibit A as a guide, designate which
of the Nexus Improvements shall be constructed using Geneva Commons twenty-five percent
(25%) share ofthe estimated cost of the total Nexus Improvements, and (ii) the parties agree and
acknowledge that all references herein to Nexus shall be deemed to be references to Geneva
Commons. If Nexus is approved and Geneva Commons is not, then Nexus, the Agency and
Sandpointe shall meet and confer in good faith, and using the order of the Nexus Improvements
specified in Exhibit A as a guide, designate which ofthe Nexus Improvements shall be constructed
using Nexus seventy-five percent (75%) share of the estimated cost of the total Nexus
Improvements.
17. COMMENCEMENT DATE
For purposes of this Agreement the term "Commencement Date" shall refer to the period
after issuance of City entitlements and shall be deemed to be a date ninety (90) days after the
issuance of entitlements to Nexus and Geneva Commons (whichever comes later). The
Commencement Date shall be tolled should a valid referendum petition be presented challenging
either project, or timely litigation be filed and served challenging any ofthe entitlements, including
approval pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
18. INTEGRATION
This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto,
and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreement between the parties with respect to all or
any the matters addressed herein. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in
writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the parties, and all amendments hereto must
be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities ofthe parties.
19. ASSIGNMENT
Nexus and Geneva Commons shall have the right to transfer or assign this Agreement, in
whole, to any person, entity (public or private), partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation
who is the owner of the real property referenced in the Recital hereto at any time during the term
of this Agreement; provided, however, the rights of Nexus or Geneva Commons under this
Agreement may not be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the City Council is
first obtained and any transfer or assignment of the rights under this Agreement shall include in
EXHIBIT D
11
75C-75
the City grants written consent to transfer the rights. Nor shall the rights of Nexus or Geneva
Commons hereunder be subject to assignment by attachment, execution, or proceedings under
any provision of the Bankruptcy Act, and any such assignment or transfer shall be wholly void
and of no force and effect unless such written consent thereto be obtained from the City Council.
Such transfer or assignment shall not relieve Nexus or Geneva Commons of any duty, obligation
or liability to City without the consent of the City.
During the term of this Agreement, any approved assignee or transferee of the
rights under this Agreement shall observe and perform all of the duties and obligations of Nexus
or Geneva Commons contained in this Agreement as such duties and obligations pertain to the
Nexus or Geneva Commons. Any and all approved successors and assignees of Nexus or
Geneva Commons shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of
Nexus or Geneva Commons under this Agreement. If the Property is subdivided, any subdivided
parcel may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned, or transferred to persons for
development by them. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights of Nexus or Geneva Commons
under this Agreement, the obligations of the assignor and the transferee or assignee shall be joint
and several.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and
year fIrst above written.
SANDPOINTE NEIGHBORHOOD,
ASSOCIATION, INC.
BY~
Name 8ogllLAu(.
Its Cl{~ /'ilj11~ tJ
NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TIONI
CENTRAL DIVISION, INC.
By
Name
Its
12
75C-76
the City grants written consent to transfer the rights. Nor shall the rights of Nexus or Geneva
Commons hereunder be subject to assignment by attachment, execution, or proceedings under
any provision of the Bankruptcy Act, and any such assignment or transfer shall be wholly void
and of no force and effect unless such written consent thereto be obtained from the City Council.
Such transfer or assignment shall not relieve Nexus or Geneva Commons of any duty, obligation
or liability to City without the consent of the City.
During the term of this Agreement, any approved assignee or transferee of the
rights under this Agreement shall observe and perform all of the duties and obligations of Nexus
or Geneva Commons contained in this Agreement as such duties and obligations pertain to the
Nexus or Geneva Commons. Any and all approved successors and assignees of Nexus or
Geneva Commons shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of
Nexus or Geneva Commons under this Agreement. If the Property is subdivided, any subdivided
parcel may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned, or transferred to persons for
development by them. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights of Nexus or Geneva Commons
under this Agreement, the obligations of the assignor and the transferee or assignee shall be joint
and several.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and
year first above written.
SANDPOINTE NEIGHBORHOOD,
ASSOCIA nON, INC.
By
Name
Its
NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TIONI
CENTRAL DIVISION, INe.
By
Name
Its
k
(La ~ ,.--
12
75C-77
ATTEST:
Patricia E. Healy
Clerk of the Council
THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC
By
Curtis R. Olson
Managing Partner
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INe.
By
Name
Its
Ll~
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
By
David N. Ream
City Manager
n
75C-78
ATTEST:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
By
Patricia E. Healy
Secretary of Agency
Patricia C. Whitaker
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher
Agency General Counsel
EXHIBIT D
14
75C-79
EXHIBIT A
OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Nexus Improvements
1. Block Wall
a. Main Street between Murphy & Sunflower, and house located at 101 W. Murphy
b. North side of Sunflower between Main & alley adjacent to four plexes, excluding
sections of wall at comer of Main & Sunflower at rear of commercial building
c. Plaster and paint with one color selected by Association
d. $3,000 per house payment for repair/replacement of landscaping associated with
wall improvements upon execution of Nexus right-of-entry for construction and
exterior-wall maintenance easement. This payment shall be made by Nexus at the
time the individual property owner executes the construction easement in favor of
Nexus and permanent maintenance easement (for the climbing vines) in favor of
the City. For any "hold outs" (as defined in paragraph 6.b. of this Agreement,
Nexus shall make the $3,000 payment to Sandpointe in trust for each hold out.
e. Remove and replace 16 sections of white concrete block wall in immediate area of
MacArthur Boulevard and Flower Street, and paint with one color selected by
Association.
f. Remove and replace 4 sections of white concrete block wall along West Alton
Avenue and paint with one color selected by Association.
g. Nexus shall install climbing vines, species identified by the City, along the outer
edge of the wall, install irrigation to feed said climbing vines which shall be
connected and metered by Nexus at the nearest City water supply, and shall
reconstruct the sidewalk to the City's specifications after installation of the
irrigation lines and block wall.
h. Wall replacement specifications shall be established pursuant to paragraph 4 of
this Agreement.
1. Nexus shall maintain, and replace as necessary, the climbing vines during a ninety
(90) day plant establishment phase following item no. 1.g.
2. Window Replacements
a. Nexus shall provide $3,500 construction allowance per house for sound proof
window replacements for up to 49 residential units located along Main Street and
Sunflower Avenue behind the existing concrete wall to be replaced. The 49
residential units are identified in Exhibit A-I to this Agreement.
b. Nexus shall assist Sandpointe in obtaining/preparing necessary construction bids,
documents and permits.
c. Allowance will be paid by Nexus to Sandpointe for any applicable home upon
receipt of bona fide construction or material invoices.
d. Allowance shall expire 12 months following the completion of the concrete wall
EXHIBIT D
1';
75C-80
replacement improvements.
e. Window specifications shall be established pursuant to paragraph 4 ofthis
Agreement.
3. Taft Elementary Loading Zone
a. Nexus shall construct all improvements necessary to effectuate Definitive
Easement Agreement between Santa Ana Unified School District, Nexus and
South Coast Church.
b. Improvements to loading zone shall include driveway approaches, traffic lanes on
site, striping, church building renovations, portable classroom relocations,
computer lab on school and church properties, etc. as provided for in plans
included as part of Definitive Easement Agreement.
4. Pay City $200,000 for City to implement a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan ("NTMP") to mitigate changes in traffic patterns or increased cut through
traffic resulting from the Nexus and Geneva Commons Projects in the Sandpointe
Neighborhood. NTMP costs shall include traffic studies, staff time to process
neighborhood traffic plan, and the construction of appropriate traffic calming
devices, including but not limited to semi-diverters, diagonal diverters, and street
closures. The implementation of the NTMP shall be pursuant to procedures
adopted by the City Council.
5. Nexus shall pay the City the full cost (see Exhibit B) for the installation of a
Traffic Signal at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street.
Publicly-Owned Improvements
1 Utility Undergrounding
a. Main Street - MacArthur to Sunflower
b. MacArthur - Main to Flower
c. Sunflower - Main to Flower (north side of street)
EXHIBIT D
10
75C-81
Single F2mily Homes:
. J. 101 W. Murphy
2. 3701 S. Alder
3. 370S S. Alder
4. 3709 S. Alder
.5, 3713 S. Alder
6. 3717 S. Alder
7. 3721 S. Alder
8. 3725 S. Alder
9. 3729 S. Alder
10. 3801 S. Alder
11. 380S S. Alder
12. 3809 S. Alder
13. 3813 S. Alder
14. 3817 S. Alckr
15. 3821 S. Alder
16. 3825 S. Alder
17. 3829 S. Alder
18. 3901 S. Alder
19. 3905 S. Alder
20. 3909 S. Alder
21. 102 W. Steven5
22. 106 W. Steven!!
23. 110 W. SteVens
24. 114 W. SteVens
25. IlllW.Stevens
26. 122 W. Stevens
27. 202 W.Stevcns
28. 206 W. SteVens
29. 210 W. SlevenS
30. 214 W. Stevens
31. 3926 S. Timber
32, 302 W. Stevens
33. 306 W. Stevens
34. 310 W. Stevens
35. 314 W. Sttven.~
36. 318 S. Stevens
37. 3922 S. Birch
FD1U'plext.1
38. 3925 S. Ross
39. 401 W. Sunflower
40. 40S W. Sunflower
41. d09 W. Sunflower
42. 50J W. Sunflower
43, 505 W. Sunflower
44. 509 W. Sunflower
45. 513 W. Sunflower
Main Attraction Condnminiumll
46. 3620 A S. Main
47.3632 AS. Mllin
48.3632 B S. Main
49.3632 C S. Main
EXHIBIT A-I
List of 49 Residential Units
List of Eligible Homc.<l for
Window Replacements
Along Main lInd Sunflower
(side.'lIQ Main)
(backs to Main)
(backs to Mllin)
(backs 10 Main)
(backs to Main)
(baclcs to Main)
(back.'! to Main)
(back.~ to Main)
(backs to Main)
(back.'! to Main)
(back.'l to Main
(backs to Main)
(backs to Main)
(!>>Icks to Main)
(back.~ to M .!in)
(blleles to Alder)
(backs to Main)
(backs 10 Main)
(backs to Main)
(backs to Main)
(backs to Main 8\1d MiniMarket)
(b4cks to Mllin lItld Mini Market)
(bacIG 10 Main and Mini Market)
(backs to Sunflower and Mini Market)
(backs to Sunflower)
(bJcks to Sunflower)
(backs 10 Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(back" to Sunflower)
(hJlcks to Sunflower)
(Aides to Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(b3clc.'l to Sunflower)
(backs 10 Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(sides to Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(!'roots Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(fronL~ Sunflower)
(fronLQ Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(sides to Main)
(fi'onts Main)
(fronts Main)
(fn>nts Mnin)
17
75C-_82
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF NEXUS IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction ofltem No. 1 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. Preliminary Site Plans - Due within thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date.
c. Final Plans - Due within sixty (60) days of City approval of Preliminary Site
Plans, together with proposed Right-Of-Entry and Maintenance Easement for
review of City and Sandpointe.
d. Building Permits, Construction Right-Of-Entry (in favor of Nexus), and
Permanent Maintenance Easement for Exterior of Wall (in favor of City) -
Application, right of entries and easements shall be submitted no late than sixty
(60) days after City approval of Final Plans.
e. Construction Commencement - Within thirty (30) days after approval of Building
Permits.
f. Construction Complete - Within one hundred twenty (120) days of
commencement of construction.
g. Ninety (90) day plant establishment phase after completion of construction of
climbing vines and irrigation.
2. Construction ofltem No.2 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. Final building permit plans shall be submitted by individual Sandpointe
homeowners to City no later than construction complete date for item no. 1,
above.
b. Construction shall be complete pursuant within one hundred twenty (120) days of
issuance of City Building Permit.
3. Construction of Item No.3 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. Nexus shall submit executed Definitive Easement Agreement to all parties no
later than one hundred eighty (180) days of the Commencement Date. If Nexus
fails to meet this deadline, which may be extended in writing by Nexus and
Sandpointe, then Nexus shall deposit $1.2 million from the Nexus Escrow into a
separate escrow with terms providing for its withdrawal by Sandpointe, which are
mutually agreeable to all parties, for use by Sandpointe on other projects to
benefit the Sandpointe neighborhood.
b. Nexus shall complete this item not later than eighteen (18) months from the
EXHIBIT D
lR
75C-83
Commencement Date. '
4. Nexus shall pay City for item no. 4 to Exhibit A not later than approval of the first final
map for the Nexus Project. The City shall follow the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan Policy adopted by the City Council.
5. Construction ofltem No.5 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. The City shall provide Nexus with a preliminary estimate of this cost within thirty
(30) days of the Commencement Date. This preliminary estimate shall be updated,
if necessary, upon the City's receipt of Nexus application to final any portion of its
tentative tract map. Said estimate shall be conclusive.
b. Nexus shall pay the City the estimated cost of this item not later than approval of
the first final map for the Nexus Project.
c. The City shall complete construction of this item prior to the first certificate of
occupancy for the Nexus Project.
Any deadline pursuant to this Exhibit C may be extended by mutual written agreement of Nexus
and the City Manager or designee.
EXHIBIT D
19
75C-84
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
1. City shall complete item no. l.a. on Exhibit A of Publicly-Owned Improvements not later
than June 2005.
2. City shall complete item no. l.b. on Exhibit A of Publicly-Owned Improvements not later
than five (5) years after the Agency provides City with the then estimated cost of the
project.
3. City shall complete item no. l.c. on Exhibit A of Publicly-Owned Improvements not later
than five (5) years after the Agency provides City with the then estimated cost of the
project.
Notwithstanding this schedule, City shall make a reasonable good faith effort to effectuate the
completion of these Publicly-Owned Improvements (which, under current law. must be designed
and constructed by Southern California Edison and not the City) prior to the dates specified above.
EXHIBIT D
20
75C-85
Exhibit "E"
Geneva Commons
Public Improvements
Improvement
Location
New sidewalk
Property frontage on First American Way
New driveway ("pan" style)
First American Way
Dedication for 25' x 25' corner cut~off
NIE corner of MacArthur & Imperial
Promenade
Sidewalk easement
lO' along property frontage of MacArthur
Blvd.
Street dedication
60' from street centerline along MacArthur
Blvd.
4" depressed curb
Emergency access on MacArthur Blvd.
Triple-left traffic mitigation measure
Southbound Imperial Promenade at
MacArthur Blvd.
Slurry Seal (including crack repair)
On Imperial Promenade and First American
Way along property frontage from curb to
street centerline
Installation of new public fire hydrants
Along MacArthur Blvd. and First American
Way
K:\Sr. II.bnagement\To Be Fil.:d'1Gene'a Commons Public lmpro\'.doc
75C-86
co
La
La
co
,....
.
o
z
(/)
(l.Z
<(0
~~
1-8
U<c
<(>
a:~
I-W
(!)
Wa:
>0
-lL.
I-
<(
I-
Z
W
I-
""
CfJO
I'Ll
CfJ>-
OE-<<
o..Z_
et::;::;Z
;::;oet::
o..uo
""
:;';E -i:J
;::;z<
z<u
-<""
:;';EE-<O
~z
-<::LI
~CfJE;;;
u""E-<
oCfJ
et::
0>-
""E-<
t:
.....""~ ,."" ."; p.nOI~ (",n',N \1).a-"o) ~'.'T~j.c...",".~':;'''NJ\''I},1'jN3\,Q\,!I'i'>.1;l]l';O~d\l'<''''LS-w.'\'/
~~
::l<
~
z
o
:;:
~';r"!
Ij I
II "" I
'I ~~~
I ::c ~ "':5 ~ i
iI'<(Ci",.",'
I ,I~~~,~~I
U}5:;~'~1
~
~
c
~
~
~i ~~
~i vii~"r::
01 5:J~t,~
~, ::i<"~:R
I ,,8~~S~
ffii ~!"'__:;::e
~ w~'<"'
<> ~~m
~I "
; It
i ~:~
i ~ i~
II
n
H
0(;;
f~
i~ !':,!
~ ~~
'O~
~~
~Ir,'~
~ . if'
~H ~ ~
~ ';
t >- ~g ~ g :J
e 1 ~ g~ .. gH~~:
~ill i:' ~z ;,I~b ~ ~ ",[j~~>;~~~",~
~:~~~ ~~h:U~~~~g!id~;g;~!~
~g~~ ~ ~~~~~~H~~~~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~ hii~
, i
I'Ll
'-'
Z
<
et::
o
I'Ll
::r:
E-<
~
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3fTTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
7 Se'D8179
~~ dE~
~ ~'~€~~~~
~ '';iJ]~idW
~~~~~~i
CD
N
>-
..J
~
-0
iat
; i! ~
U~2J
D
LJ
f-
<(
D
~~~
8~i
en ~-
~Gt
~i':5
(])/;::'.! '"'
: ~ r. ~ ;
~ ';.... If; Ok
;C.., ~
I~
':; Q
-:;..:,,,,--
im
~:i!
::li3",,8
~; i~
I~~~'~
!ZI ~z ~~"
~ ~~~~g
I!! o~ ~~~
, ~~'.':;(O::
~I ~:r'<
ffi ~;~~;
~15""C,
~ ~8~:~
~.~~!~
~~
I! Ill:
8~ ~~E~
0'1 ~~~~
!~ ~,~;;
Jil!ii
.~!
8
" ~
, <
" ~
";: I
r....-
III. MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING DENSITY/INTENSITY
A. MAXIMUM DENSITIES
The maximum authorized building densities/intensities for the MacArthur Place District Center are
as follows:
1. 4,051,000 square feet of Floor Area of office/commercial use; plus
2. 4(}Q-624 residential units with an authorized maximum of 500,000 square feet of Floor
Area of building structures to accommodate the residential units;
3. The maximum office/commercial density with no residential use is 4,175,000 square feet
of Floor Area.
The maximum densities can be converted or exchanged as follows:
a. 1,000 square feet of Floor Area for office space can be converted into and exchanged
for 2 hotel rooms (common areas in hotels are not calculated in the determination of
maximum densities).
b. 1,000 square feet of Floor Area of office space can be converted into and exchanged
for 3.23 residential units.
c. 1,000 square feet of Floor Area of office can be exchanged for 280 square feet of
retail commercial.
Parking structures are not included in the calculation of Floor Area.
The MacArthur Place District Center will be developed contingent on the installation of major
infrastructure improvements as set forth in the EIR. The applicable infrastructure improvements
corresponding to each phase of development within the MacArthur Place District Center are required
to be substantially completed as follows:
(i) With respect to the first phase of the Development, fifty percent (50%) of all applicable
first phase off-site improvements set forth in Section 2.4 and Table 1 of the EIR shall be
completed prior to the issuance of any tenancy occupancy permits with respect to the last
building to be constructed in such phase, and the remainder of all first phase off-site
improvements shall be completed not later than one year following the date of issuance of
such tenant occupancy permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a condition to such
one-year extension of the obligation to complete such first phase off-site improvements,
Developer shall deliver to City sufficient security to ensure the completion of the
remaining first phase off-site improvements within such one-year period;
5
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
EXI-IIBIT 10
Page 1 of 2
75C-88
2. No refuse collection areas shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building
line.
H. Telephone and Electrical Service
All "on site" electrical lines and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformers
or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent
properties.
RESIDENTIAL
A. Buildin!! Hei!!hts
Building heights shall be as designated
Office/Commercial/Retail Hotel designation.
In the ProfessionallBuilding
B. Permitted Density
Maximum density shall not exceed the ~624 dwelling units for the entire MacArthur Place
District Center.
C. Minimum Lot Area
None.
D. Minimim Lot Width
None.
E. Usable Open Space
Ground level open space must be provided within 500 feet of any residential unit on the site
at a rate of 250 square feet of area for each unit. Such usable open space shall be divided
between common and private open space. Private and open space shall be required to be
provided for each unit at a rate of no less than ninety (90) square feet of the total open space
required.
F. Yard Requirements
Refer to setbacks for Professional and Business Offices/Commercial/Retail/Hotel.
G. Maximum Lot Covera2e
None; provided, however, minimum setbacks complying with requirements of this Specific
Development Plan shall be required.
16
75e-1J~
GENEVA COMMONS AVIATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Instrument Approach, Departure Procedure
and VFR Analysis of John Wayne Airport
3 NOVEMBER, 2004 Orig
(Revision 1, dtd 11/10/04)
Prepared by
Tom Krause Aviation Consulting
CUPO~2~AO~3nTMO~5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
6f~e!go
Table of Contents
1.0 General Information ............................................................................2
1.1 Introduction................................................ .................. ................. ........... 3
1.2 Background and Terminology .................................................................3
1.3 Approach Procedures .................................................... ..........................4
1.3.1 Precision Approach Procedures..........................................................4
1.3.2 - 1.3.4 Non-Precision Approach Procedures...................................5
2.0 An a I ys is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Scope of Analysis ....... ......................................... ...... ..............................6
2.2 Precision Approach (R19L) ..................................................................... 6
2.3 Non-precision Approaches........................ ................................... ..........6
2.3.1 Ci rcling Procedures. ................ ................ ........... ............. ............. ......6
2.4 Departu re Procedures..................................................... ......................... 8
2.5 Circling vs VFR........................................................................... 7
2.6 .....................................................................................................................
3.0 Summary.................. ........................... ....................... ..........9
Attachments
A. FAA Directives, Regulations and Other FAA Related References..9
B. Thomas Krause Qualifications.......... ................................................10
C. Graph ic of SNA............... .................................. ..................................12
D. FAA Obstruction Evaluation............................................... ............13
2
75C-91
1.0 General Information
1.1 Introduction
Tom Krause Aviation Consulting was retained by the Geneva Commons proponent to
assess any impacts the proposed buildings may have on Aviation Safety. The
assessment was conducted primarily for two purposes. The first objective was to verify
Air Safety in connection with the FAA Part 77 Obstruction Evaluation study and the
second was to put the FAA Part 77 study in perspective regarding the Geneva
Commons building. Although the FAA issued a determination of no aeronautical hazard
for the Geneva Commons area, last March the ALUC found the building to be
inconsistent with AELUP.
The instrument analysis is based, in part, on application of current United States
standards for instrument procedures developed under Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR Part 97)(FAR). These standards are applied by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in developing approach or departure procedures, or in
conducting Part 77 obstruction evaluations. These standards are specified in FAA
Order 8260.38, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
and in FAR Part 77, Obiects AffectinQ Navioable Airspace. Information on man-made
obstructions was obtained from National Ocean Service's national database for man-
made obstructions. The terrain information was obtained from 1 :24000 topographic
quadrangle charts and the 2002 Santa Ana International Airport Obstruction Chart (OC)
along with digital data from the 2001 OC survey.
It should be noted that every effort was made to use available obstacle data and current
FAA criteria and regulations for the Instrument Approach Procedure analysis. However,
the consultant cannot be responsible for obstacles that may be discovered later as a
result of new surveys or unreported man-made objects that are unknown, or other
constraints that may increase heights or otherwise adversely impact the results present
in this study.
1.2 Background and Terminology
The ability to conduct takeoffs and landings during periods of reduced visibility or
inclement weather is an important factor at commercial airports. Instrument flight rules
(I FR) weather conditions are defined as periods when the cloud ceiling is less than
1,000 feet above ground or the prevailing visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states that if a landing is to be made
at an airport during IFR conditions, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is
necessary, aircraft shall follow a FAA standard instrument approach procedure (SlAP)
that is prescribed for the airport. An aircraft cannot land when the in-flight visibility is
lower than the minimum specified in the SlAP.
As part of its mandate to promote the safe and efficient use of airspace, the FAA is
responsible for establishing and approving terminal instrument procedures at civil
3
75C-92
airports. The FAA Orders referenced above contain criteria utilized by FAA to
formulate, review, approve and publish instrument approach and departure procedures
for airports and runways. These procedures are developed to ensure that aircraft are
provided safe clearance over man-made or natural obstacles when flying during IFR
weather conditions. Additional obstacle clearance is built into instrument procedures
that are developed for airports located in and near mountains or other precipitous
terrain.
The procedures utilized by FAA for Flight Procedure analysis, development and OE
evaluations are specified in AIRSPACE AND PROCEDURES, (FAA OrderA8260.19C).
Chapter 5 of 8260.19 addresses Obstruction Evaluations (OE). See attachment (D).
The FAA through their regulatory procedures has already determined that neither the
instrument approach or departure procedures are impacted by the proposed Geneva
Commons projects.
This independent Geneva Commons analysis presented herein is based on the existing
FAA IFR procedures and re-evaluated for POTENTIAL IMPACT on Instrument
approach procedures to Runways 19R/L and 01 R/L. Likewise, departures were
evaluated using current FAA Departure Procedures published for John Wayne Airport,
(SNA). The criteria used is the same as the FAA is supposed to use in its
determinations.
1.3 Approach Procedures
An instrument approach procedure can be classified as precision or non-precision. A
precision approach provides electronic glide path (vertical guidance) in addition to
directional information to the pilot, whereas a non-precision approach provides only
directional guidance. A precision approach provides the information via navigational
aids to ensure that an aircraft is at a specific altitude at a specific point. Vertical
guidance provided in a precision approach allows descent to a lower altitude than a
non-precision approach. For a non-precision approach, a barometric altimeter is used
for vertical (descent) information. Barometric altimeter settings involve readings of
elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL).
1.3.1 Precision Approach Procedures
The term DA/DH (decision altitude/decision height) refers to the decision point on a
precision approach at which a decision must be made during a precision approach to
either continue the landing maneuver or execute a missed approach. The term decision
altitude (DA) is the height above mean sea level (MSL) of the decision point for a
Category I approach. The term decision height (DH) is the height above threshold for a
Category II/III approach at which a decision must be made to either continue the landing
maneuver or execute a missed approach. FAR Part 91.175 requires that an instrument
approach descent may not continue below the DA/DH unless:
(i) The aircraft is in a position to make a normal approach to the runway; and,
4
75C-93
(ii) The approach threshold for that runway, or approach lights or other markings
identifiable with the approach end of the runway, are clearly visible to the pilot.
Precision approaches are categorized based on decision DAlDH and the horizontal
visibility that pilot has along the runway. Visibility is expressed in statute miles or in
terms of runway visual range (RVR) values, stated in feet, when RVR equipment is
installed on a runway. A Category I (CAT I) ILS is capable of providing an approach to
a decision height as low as 200 feet above the threshold and a standard visibility not
less than one-half statute mile or a RVR of not less than 1800 feet.
1.3.2 Non-Precision Approach Procedures
Non-precision approaches are categorized as straight-in or circling. Straight-in
approaches are based on course guidance that is generally aligned with the centerline
of the runway. Additionally, the descent gradient from the minimum altitude to the
runway must still be within set limits. Circling approaches are generally designed when
the instrument approach is not aligned with the runway or when maximum descent
gradients are exceeded. As such, straight-in approaches usually permit descent to a
lower altitude than circling approaches.
A circling approach is a maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with a runway
for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument is not possible or is not
desirable. Circling minimums are a statement of MDA and visibility required for the
circle-to-Iand maneuver. Descent below the established MDA or DH is not authorized
during an approach unless the aircraft is in a position from which a normal approach to
the runway of intended landing can be made and adequate visual reference to required
visual cues is maintained.
1.3.3
Departure Procedures
Standard instrument takeoff minimums and departure procedures are prescribed in FAR
Part 91.175. Obstacle clearance is based on the aircraft climbing at least 200 feet per
nautical mile, crossing the end of the runway at least 35 feet AGL, and climbing to 400
feet above airport elevation before turning unless otherwise specified in the procedure.
A published IFR departure procedure is required whenever obstacles in the departure
area preclude an aircraft from climbing out at a standard rate climb gradient of 200 feet
per nautical mile and proceeding in any direction after take-off, (diverse departure).
Departure procedures are designed to assist pilots in conducting IFR flight while safely
avoiding obstacles during climb out to a Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA). IFR
departure procedures specify minimum climb rates and routes to avoid obstacles.
The analysis of departure procedures is based on standards contained in FAA Order
8260.38. The TERPS IFR departure criteria are predicated on normal aircraft
operations, i.e., all-engines running.
5
75C-94
1.3.4 Proposed Instrument Approaches
As of November 3,2004, there were no proposed new approaches to John Wayne
Airport. (source: Aviation System Standards [AVN] web site,
http://avn .faa.qov/acifp.asp).
2.0 Analysis
2.1 Scope of Analysis
The following Instrument Approach, Missed Approach, and Departure Procedures were
evaluated with respect to the Geneva Commons proposed elevations and location:
SNA Instrument Approach Procedures
ILS Rwy 19L; LOC (Back Course) Rwy 1 L; LOA Rwy 19R; RNAV (GPS) Rwy 1 L; RNAV
(GPS) Rwy 19R; NDB Rwy 1L; NDB Rwy 19R.
SNA Departure Procedures
DUUKE RNAV ONE DEPARTURE; ANAHEIM THREE DEPARTURE; CHANNEL ONE
DEPARTURE; DUUKE ONE DEPARTURE; Published IFR Departure.
Local VFR procedures
2.2 Precision Approach (ILS R19L)
Geneva Commons is located well outside the ILS obstruction trapezoids. It is located
6876' (1.3 SM) from the R19R Threshold and 3200' (0.53 SM) from the ILS Centerline.
Additionally, it is located more than 1,000' from the extremity edge of the ILS trap, 0.19
sm. Therefore, Geneva Commons will not impact these approaches or be considered a
hazard to Air Navigation. (Please see attachment C).
2.3 Non-Precision Approaches
Geneva Commons will not adversely impact any of the non-precision approaches to
either Runways 01 L or 19R at the maximum building elevation of 287'MSL (including
any future appurtenances) of 310 feet AMSL. The FAA Western Pacific Flight
Procedures Office had already determined that there would be no impacts when the
determination of no hazard was issued. The proposed building sites are located at the
extremity of the LOA R19R transitional surface. There will be no impact to the LOA
approach with the buildings constructed at the site as indicated in the Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1).
6
75C-95
The RNAV procedure to R19R could be impacted if the buildings exceed 310' feet MSL.
The proposed buildings are located in the primary area of the RNAV, however the
current FAA published minimums are adequate and will not require any changes. One
consideration that must be addressed is FAR Part 77.15. Part 77.15 does not require a
person to notify the Administrator for the construction of any antenna structure of 20 feet
or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure.
A 20 foot addition to the building elevation would make the total elevation of the building
287'+20' = 307'. Therefore, the building's maximum elevation including any 20 foot
antenna will not exceed 310' feet MSL. The 310' elevation is the maximum altitude
permitted in this area by the RNA V approach without requiring a change to the
procedures minimum altitudes.
The runway 01 L Localizer Back course missed approach procedure will not be impacted
by the Geneva Commons Building. The current missed approach calls for a "Climb to
800, then climbing left turn to 2300 via SLI R-120 to SLI VORTAC." The missed
approach location is 0.7 nautical miles south of the R01 L threshold at an altitude of 480'
MSL. Even a minimally performing aircraft climbing at the minimum rate of 200' per
nautical mile will commence their turns within two miles from the missed approach point,
more than a mile prior to the Geneva Commons Site. Even if the missed approach
aircraft failed to turn but proceeded straight ahead the aircraft would be above 1000'
MSL by the time they were abeam Geneva Commons.
2.3.1 Circling Procedures
Circling approaches were evaluated for the established Instrument Approach
Procedures at SNA. The lowest circling minimums were found on the RNAV (GPS)
R19R and RNAV (GPS) R1 L approaches. The minimum descent altitude for the
approaches was 640 feet MSL with 1 statute mile visibility for Aircraft categories A & B;
1 % miles for Category C; and 2 miles for Category 0 aircraft.
The FAA used the highest obstacle in the protected circling area to determine the
proper minimums. In this case, the 321 foot Center Tower is the controlling obstacle
that was used by the FAA, (Source: FAA Form 8260.9 on file at Sacramento Flight
I nspection Office). The tower is located 6000 feet North/Northwest of R 19L. The
minimum required obstacle clearance for a circling procedure is 300 feet. In this case
the building height of 321 feet MSL plus 300 feet = 621. This figure is then rounded up
to the nearest 20' increment therefore providing the 640' MSL circling MDA. A taller
structure, 323 feet MSL, is located at South Coast Plaza, (Source; 2002 Obstruction
Chart). However, the minimum altitude for circling remains at 640'MSL due to the
aforementioned rounding.
The proposed Geneva structure at an elevation of 287' feet MSL and 6876' (1.3 SM)
feet from R19L will not impact the circling procedure. The Center Tower at 321' MSL as
well as the South Coast Plaza at 323'MSL are higher and control the MDA for the
lowest circling minimums at SNA.
7
75C-96
2.4 Departure Procedures
Instrument Departures
The current FAA published Departure Procedure for John Wayne Airport requires all
aircraft to climb runway heading to 700 and then make a left turn (R01 L) or a right turn
(R19R) direct Seal Beach VORTAC. The turns are commenced at an altitude well
above the proposed Geneva Commons building therefore not imposing any impact on
departing aircraft.
The Anaheim Three Departure requires a turn to 330 degrees after takeoff from R01 L.
However, the aircraft is not supposed to commence a turn prior to reaching 400 feet
above field elevation. Field elevation is 56 feet MSL therefore the aircraft should not
turn prior to reaching 456 feet MSL. This far exceeds the minimum altitude required by
the FAA TERPS Departure criteria to clear any building within the Geneva Commons
area. This is another reason that FAA has provided for a determination of no adverse
impact.
The CHANNEL ONE, DUUKE ONE and MUSEL SIX Departures all depart to the South
from R19R and therefore are not impacted by the proposed buildings.
2.5 Circling vs VFR Considerations
A circling approach to either R01 Lor R19R is possible with visibilities as low as 1
statute mile and ceilings as low as 600' AGL above the airport. These circling
minimums are significantly lower than VFR requirements of 1000' AGL and 3 miles
visibility. The FAA circling minimums put the aircraft closer to the ground and buildings
in poor weather conditions than operations under VFR. And yet, the FAA has
determined that obstruction clearance requirements are safe and that the circling
minimums at John Wayne likewise are safe. My evaluation affirms the FAA findings.
The proposed Geneva Commons building site is located 6,876 feet (1.3 sm) north of the
end of R19R. The proposed building is neither located on the final approach nor in
close proximity to the VFR traffic pattern to Runway 19R. The impacts of penetrations
are minor compared to other buildings within the airport area.
The minimum R19R VFR traffic pattern altitudes are: 1054 MSL for small aircraft, 1554
MSL for turbine aircraft over 12,500#, (Source: Airnav.com). The minimum R19L VFR
traffic pattern altitudes are: Small Single engine aircraft: 854' MSL, Twin engine aircraft:
1054' MSL, Turbine aircraft: 1554' MSL (Source, John Wayne Airport Pilot Information
Guide).
The proposed building is located 6876' from R19R at an elevation of 287' MSL. Aircraft
on a right downwind to R19R already have a 323' MSL building and 321' MSL building
in its downwind and/or base turn area (OBS 8-323_and 7-321). In addition, most VFR
traffic from the North/Northwest will be following the 405 freeway for their base to the
8
75C-97
appropriate runway 19L or 19R. This is located well inside the proposed building site.
This puts the VFR aircraft approximately 1600' north of the runway ends while the
Geneva Commons site is located 6,800' north.
3.0 Summary
Although the proposed Geneva Commons buildings will exceed the standards of FAR
PART 77, the building site does not adversely impact any Instrument Approach
Procedures, Departure Procedures or VFR procedures at John Wayne Airport at the
maximum AMSL altitude the proponent has chosen. The FAA evaluation found that
there would be no significant adverse effect upon visual Flight rules (VFR) operations,
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, or upon the operation of an air navigation aid
(NAVAID) if the building were built to the height requested in the FAA Form 7460-1. My
study affirms the VFR and IFR operations determination issued by FAA.
9
75C-98
Attachment (A)
FAA Directives, Regulations and Other FAA Related References used in this Study
FAA ORDER 8260.3B - UNITED STATES STANDARD FOR TERMINAL INSTRUMENT
PROCEDURES (TERPS)
FAA ORDER 8260.l9C - FLIGHT PROCEDURES AND AIRSPACE
FAA ORDER 8260.38A - CIVIL UTILIZATION OF GLOBAL POSITIONING
SYSTEM(GPS)
FAA ORDER 8260.48 - AREA NAVIGATION (RNA V) APPROACH CONSTRUCTION
CRITERIA
FAA No. 405 - STANDARDS FOR AERONAUTICAL SURVEYS and related products
FAA Order 7400.2E - PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING AIRSPACE MATTERS
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION: PART 157 - NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION,
ALTERATION, ACTIVATION, AND DEACTIVATION OF AIRPORTS
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: PART 77 - OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE
AIRSPACE
FAA FORMS 8260 - 3; 8260 - 5, 8260 - 9 FOR ILS, LDA AND RNA V TO RUNWAY 19R
AT SANTAANNJOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR, AC: 150/5190-4A: A MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE TO
LIMIT HEIGHT OF OBJECTS AROUND AIRPORTS
FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR, AC: 70/7460-2J
FAA FORMS 7 460-1 PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO FAA FOR THE TWO BUILDING
SITES
2002 AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT; OC 377
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL
- Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and A TC Procedures
10
75C-99
Attachment (B)
THOMAS E. KRAUSE
Mr. Krause is a specialist in Instrument Flight Procedures
feasibility, design and development and obstacle evaluations. His
qualifications include over 20 years with FAA, with 17 years in
Flight Inspection and Flight Procedures Development including
the design of Instrument approach and noise abatement
procedures for Reno/Tahoe and Reno/Stead airports, Nevada;
the re-use pIan for the decommissioned E1 Toro MCAS; original
feasibility and subsequent development for Federal Express of a
Special TLS procedure to Subic Bay, Phillipines. Other experience
includes Noise Abatement, Instrument Approach and Departure
analysis and feasibility studies. He was an Air Force Pilot from
1970-1975, Air National Guard Pilot from 1975-1981, and FAA Air
Traffic Controller from 1977-1980. He was an FAA professional
pilot from 1980 -1997. During this period he flew more than 3000
Instrument Approach and Departure procedures to assure
compliance with the National Airspace system and to evaluate
facility performance.
Relevant Project Experience
Flight Operations Chief for Flight Inspection Frankfurt,
Germany. Supervised pilots and Airborne Technicians;
directed the Flight Inspection activities for the Frankfurt
Flight Inspection Field Office. Provided Flight Inspection
coordination and briefings with the Directors of Aviation
of the various countries. Conducted Pilot Flight Checks to
assure compliance and ability.
Worked on the Headquarters staff at Oklahoma City, OK.
Conducted FAA pilot flight checks, and conducted office
evaluations to determine compliance with FAA
Headquarters policy and objectives. Performed
Contracting Officers representative duties for Flight
Inspection and Instrument Flight Procedures training.
Developed Flight Procedure and Flight Inspection training
courses for all field personnel.
Performed enroute and Terminal Instrument Approach
Procedures checks throughout the United States including
Hawaii and Alaska.
The Oklahoma assignment was a Washington, D.C. level
assignment which involved frequent interface with other
75C-100
Education
Wisconsin State University,
1965 -1969
University of Northern
California Law School,
1992-1995; Juris Doctor
Degree - Member of
California State Bar #189100
Training
USAF Pilot Training
Reese AFB, Lubbock, TX,
1970-1971
Air Traffic Controller
Training, Oklahoma City,
OK,
1977
Airspace Systems
Inspection Pilot Training
and Flight Procedures
Training, 1980
Arctic Survival Training to
detennine feasibility of
FAA Flight Crews
increasing their safety level.
Certificates and Licenses
Airline Transport Pilot -
# 1077248
Certified FAA Flight
Inspection Pilot
California State Bar
#189100
FAA Headquarters personnel and Aviation directors from various countries.
Flight Procedures supervisor and manager- Responsible for Instrument Flight procedure
development and coordination for nine western states. This office is located in
Sacramento, CA.
Flight Procedures Office in the Northwest Mountain Region -
Acted as the FAA Flight Procedures liaison with
the Aviation Directors for the states of Colorado, Utah
and Wyoming. Provided feasibility studies
for various Instrument Approach Procedures, coordinated
closely with cities such as Salt Lake City to determine
preferred Traffic Flows. Worked closely with Salt Lake
City and the 2002 01ympic Committee to determine the
best locations in regards to arrival and departure routes
for heliports and aircraft in support of the 2002 0lympics.
Independent Aviation Consultant Independent Contractor
Since leaving FAA in 1997 Tom has performed the activities
identified in the opening paragraph pIus additional feasibility
analyses and appropriate coordination. He also operates a Law
office representing low income clients. His main interest
obviously involves aviation. He stilI knows and coordinates
with many of the FAA personnel that are still in the FAA.
In addition, any independent contractors that he might use for
assistance in any given project have at least as good of
qualifications as he does.
12
75C-101
Attachment C
\ ",
.
\
.... I,
Ii Ii
J; :~$ir
,I I it
I
I
.
.
.
--. ~, - - --.~
OWER .
I
I'
........
~,
A1H.
/"
....
,~
~ ~'4
# . ~
13
75C-102
Attachment (D)
FAA ORDER 8260.19@AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION EVALUATION Discussion
GENERAL
14 CFR Part 77 requires that the Administrator be notified prior to the construction or
alteration of structures which might present a hazard to flight. Form 7460-1, Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, is the medium for that notification of construction
or alteration.
RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCESSING OF FAA FORM 7460-1
The regional ATD (Air Traffic Division) has the responsibility to process all Forms 7460-
1 in accordance with 14 CFR Part 77 and FAA Order 7400.2, PROCEDURES FOR
HANDLING AIRSPACE MATTERS. In this regard, AVN-100 (Aviation System
Standards Flight Procedures Branch) shall ensure that a complete evaluation of the
effect the proposed construction or alteration will have on IFR aircraft operations,
including the visual portion of an IFR procedure, is provided to Air Traffic. AVN-
100 shall also assist Air Traffic in reconciling possible discrepancies in IFR findings
made by military services. Additionally, the Regional Flight Standards Division (FSD),
All Weather Operations Program Manager, shall serve as the focal point for assessing
VFR operational impact. Initial impact assessments should be made by the Flight
Procedures Office (FPO) and FSD.1
TERMINAL AREA IFR OPERATIONS
AVN-100 shall assess the effect upon terminal area IFR operations to include
approach/departure procedures, transitions, radar vectoring charts, holding patterns,
and STARS. The study should assess the effect upon any segment of an existing or
proposed instrument approach/departure procedure and any restrictions.
If the proposed construction or alteration will have an adverse effect on VFR or IFR
aircraft operations, procedures, or minimum IFR flight altitudes, AVN-100 and Flight
Standards evaluations should clearly state the extent of these effects. Air Traffic is
responsible for making the final determination of whether adverse impacts are
substantial or minimal.
NOTE REGARDING FLIGHT INSPECTION AIRCRAFT AND OE ANALYSIS
Flight Inspection aircraft do not go to check out a building after it is built. Flight
Inspection aircraft perform initial and periodic inspections of all instrument procedures in
conjunction with the inspection of the supporting navigational aid. Flight Inspection
checks out new and revised instrument approach procedures prior to the procedures
I All references are made to selected portions of FAA Order 8260.19C that direct certain specific actions of the
different entities involved in the OE Evaluation Process.
14
75C-103
being published to verify controlling obstructions and to verify flyability along with the
overall performance of the procedure.
The basic procedural analysis regarding a proposed building is accomplished during the
ground level evaluation based upon the sound, efficient check of the potential impacts
on the various procedures at any particular airport. The same criteria and methodology
is used by the Flight Procedures Office for an OE evaluation as is used in developing an
original or revised instrument procedure.
15
75C-104
ADDENDUM TO to REVISION 1 OF THE
GENEVA COMMONS AVIATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Instrument Approach, Departure Procedure
and VFR Analysis of John Wayne Airport
3 NOVEMBER, 2004 Orig
(Revision 1, dtd 11/10/04)
Addendum dated 14 November, 2004
Prepared by
Tom Krause Aviation Consulting
75C-105
Instrument Approach, Departure and VFR Analysis
SNA Airport
GENEVA COMMONS
Table of Contents
I. General Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. ILS Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
III. Localizer Back Course R01 L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
EXHIBITS
A. Aerial View with Traps and new location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Topographic Chart with ILS obstacle clearance surfaces. . . . . . . . . . . .5
C. TERPS ILS Obstacle Clearance Surface Depiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1
75C-106
I. GENERAL DISCUSSION
This addendum is to expand on the earlier report submitted on November 10, 2004 showing that
the Geneva Commons Building project will not adversely effect the instrument procedures at SNA.
It is to address some concerns that have been expressed about buildings in the location of the
Geneva Commons project.
Part 77 surfaces are advisory in nature and provide the requirements for submission of Notices of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, Form 7460-1. If the object exceeds a height or surface
defined in Subpart C of FAR Part 77, it would be an obstruction and would be the subject of an
aeronautical study by the FAA to determine its effect on navigable airspace. If the object is
concluded to have a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient utilization of such
airspace, it would be determined to be a hazard to air navigation.
In the Obstacle Analysis and Determination of No Hazard1 of the Geneva Commons site, the FAA
determined that the building would not constitute a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and
efficient utilization of such airspace. Our independent analysis concluded the same.
As part of the FAA's aeronautical determination an analysis is made as to any impact to Instrument
procedures at the effected airport. The reason for this analysis is that the United States Standard
for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) surfaces is more restrictive than Part 77, and TERPS
surfaces are regulatory. Therefore, any penetrations of the applicable TERPS surfaces would
adversely impact the instrument procedure and require a modification or nullification of the
procedure if such object were allowed to be built depending on the amount of penetration and any
mitigating factors.
In the present case, there is neither any impact to any of the instrument procedures at John Wayne
Airport from the Geneva Commons building site nor does the building penetrate any of the
regulatory TERPS obstacle clearance surfaces.
II. ILS ANALYSIS
There appears to be some concern from the ALCU staff on potential impacts of the Geneva
building on the ILS to Runway 19R at John Wayne Airport. As pointed out in the above discussion,
and readily viewable in diagrams A and B, the proposed building site is located well outside the ILS
TERPS surfaces. The proposed Geneva Commons building sits approximately 1300 feet outside
the nearest edge of the ILS trapezoid.
Precision (ILS) Final Approach obstruction clearance surfaces are as depicted in Diagram B. The
"Y", "X" and 'W" obstacle clearance surface (OCS) dimensions are as specified in diagram B.
There are many additional formulae utilized but this page provides the basics. The 'W" OCS is an
inclined plane at SNA at a 1 :34 slope beginning 200' from the landing threshold point (L TP) and
extending along the approach course centerline to the final approach fix.
The "X" obstacle surface begins at the height of the 'W" surface and rises at a slope of 1 :4
perpendicular to the final approach course.
1 2003 - A WP - 2870 - OE issued 9/23/2003
2
75C-107
The "Y" obstacle surface begins at the height of the "X" surface and rises at a slope of 1:7
perpendicular to the final approach course.
Diagram A shows the protected area overlying an aerial image of John Wayne Airport.
So as not to impact the ILS approach, buildings and/or other objects would be restricted to the
following height at a position abeam the Geneva Commons Site at the nearest point on the
extremity of the "Y" surface to an elevation of 454.9' AMSL2. This is well above the proposed
building height and and is located 1300' away from the edge of the ILS area. This discussion is
only relevant to the ILS procedure which offers the lowest landing minimums at SNA. Other
instrument procedures at SNA have different required obstacle clearances such as the localizer
only, RNA V and LOA. These were discussed in the original report.
III. LOCALIZER BACK COURSE RUNWAY 01L
The back course localizer approach to R01 L offers the lowest instrument approach minimums to
Runway 01 L at SNA. The missed approach procedure is "Climb to 800, then climbing left turn to
2300 via SLI R-120 to SLI VORTAC.
The missed approach point for the SNA Runway 01 L BC localizer procedure is located 0.7 nm to
the south of R01 L. The distance from the missed approach point to the building is 3.44 statute
miles (18,163'). The missed approach altitude for the procedure is 480' AMSL.
FAA designs procedures for the missed that take into account the worst possible aircraft
performers. However, a minimum climb rate of 200' in the missed approach is required. This figure
is not realistic with modern aircraft that can safely exceed 1,000 feet per nautical mile in the missed
approach procedure. However, even at a minimum climb rate of 200'/NM the aircraft will begin a
left turn at 800' MSL to the northwest and at this altitude is already well above the proposed
building sites, and the commencement of the turn will occur approximately 1.82 statute miles prior
to the proposed buildings. At a 1000'/NM climb rate the left turn to the northwest would commence
at least 2.77 statute miles prior to the proposed building sites.
IV. Conclusion
The proposed Geneva Commons building site at the FAA approved elevation of 287' AMSL will not
affect any of the instrument procedures at John Wayne Airport.
2 The height (Dy) = Height of Rise of Rise of
"w" Sfc "X" Sfc "Y" Sfc
Dy = D-(200) Dx - Ow Do - Dx = 454.9
S 4 7
Where D=the distance in feet from the L TP; Dx = the perpendicular distance in feet between course centerline and "x" surface outer boundary,
Do = perpendicular distance in feet between course centerline and an obstruction in the "V" surface.
3
75C-108
4
75C-109
...,
....,:~; ':.c.. : :.) ~;' .;.
...,
-:'f.'..-.~'~~;r-;-:,;' ~;-~~II ,.. iiFS,'..[
. .mn, : ;;~,;. or I ~~(.~ , r;i.tl~1' .J~rs.
r ':__AX~c, . , ~. i~; <"1' "~4' .i ~I:,i~?~~i;:~~ ·
t, ',.. ..J~i" II h...Ii.I:'lt~1I
.- .'\;'\-\ :. \,c~: ~! ., l' '1 .......:11.. . :
~ I. _';;'--- .<:T". .' - -
i:. .-t- - ~:, 1 & 2 "".1, ,\rthlll 1'1..... ..nd ,1 Iml','ri,.ll'm
'~'('. _I' 'r. '1"',I.l.X Eh'\ - n.", . ,\!\ISI
",\.:,-- ~~ ~ :"'1 rl~.... ·
, . .~ ~~ & ,I: ~ :l ',",
:;;.~: 1--;:fAA olppron.J {;"m'\'<l Common.. - 2S7' ,\I\ISI +d'
,,~..... - '~_ ". . Me......
., 1-::" l;r:(~;~"'R' >I""'N'"I' "" ~::';;:;f~';i.
I I~I - . ~\ t ",::1
.. "., I I Ill:
... 0;,', I f~.' I:' 11
,... q ~~r " Jles"5 & 6 Hutton . .'. .'
.. ,.' \ t': I ;"21-l' & 22-l' ,\~IS[t~
_ 'ft;.i~~~~':::'':.:"._-:'':'~''~. J.~!~N!_L_~~<<:',~ II :....,
;. [.~~:l~I~:[~lte[ ,,- -~;i;~\ G':' L ,} "
1'1
. Pl.lZ.l T OWl'r COSTA
121' A!\l&l '
,', '"
. SUW'LOWl..
I!,
Kuil~
2~'_~1
>,..;;.
. ~ ~..., ....,j., >.'"
:~}~j;~,M '
"
.
.
:; I,.
--~
,'l,
. . ~ ~'" ~". r-.#
'~. +. ,.. ! ~.
: ,.... ~'.-.-
~+ ,....' .... .
'~ .~t~,~~/~
rt',. ~ ...~.. -,~71C'.,:'1.
I. . ~~~.I- .'4 · I ..
'I' ,..,..... ,., .
-6 , . I . ,..fIt J- #
, .. '\ ~ 'f' . "':c,; ,$'"
,: .... ... ,~~.. ' , '.'. ' ,,'~:~ ,...,'. ~ ,,,,y '"
l;,.Jt..'l #.:; ,'~~.?lr""~",' .:"J- I_.~
'.e-.... _. . 1#' .......,..r..''f,''.,. >--i-i. ::ir:< ..' ~v...;-:-: . ~ +
... I ' "1. ~~.:'. *:~i;I,'" "" -. , ..c
~ '.1: f,. '.'. : ,f:.o.r~OIB: I l'
_I' . ';'!-?,.';~' ': 'I. . ~
-- <.., _'f'. i " <><> '. '
~. _. ......,b'...'.pctl l' ,/..... . r , .Ttlw.-! 17 - 24'" ,\!\ISI
#, .L'I ,f~~~:.;t;' . ':$)~4:' ~~:'_\rt~~ ~our~21 '.167'.:\"'1'-1
,I..,.. ~~..l. .~I ~ ~~\"(....r-'" ...~ ..'"
~ '" ! ^'~ ,"'..tTK "'l' ' "':i1'.J"!"'~' I . ....,. ) ,.1
'0' ';';:'-' ~~~.}tir)"_.~io,. ---:.....;.--:."./:~.~~S1...: ~i..~-.+- ~;_.-~ ., o~,
,'. ~4;.~~. .~:(t.~,i: ,~;-' .... +. :l~";!: '.. . ..~"'::.o....~\/" '-~\
~~. ' '.. ~.,j/ '.''" ..... '''~',;~ ..../., ;/
S4,.ta.l.",i1.",,":- ,-,'f ~--" '4'" ~~:f':'~.>'." _.>'~':
: C,""t". CI.,( . - ,~~" ' ,.)~ :t'~".:J H~ . ":'~. ~ /'.'. '~"
f'::' -, ,:,'<~~ j' ');;; ,'-l ~"~.~~." 4 ;t1Ii't;~ . .,;> >. ..".~'
, ^ ".. ;.', ',. '"",, , ".. \" ........y.~ '.... ".."" ;J<..... ,~...,
" "" " " "'" I "~ 4' ~ .' ,'. .., . if.
r .....;^. \..~ '" ."~,Y , ", ,,;;~~{ ,. I ' ~.' ~-"r~:(r-;+fI).
~ ~"'~"..," ~"""",,/ .-.:;,.-<-..",~.. '/,..- /.~, ,./ .-'":---}---. .;/;:111',//,:>).......',
I "J'. '. >C ... ~lf/ ~+".I~'" ~ ' ",,->..-' ,.-;,
r ':J ,) .. ....A... ../ I t" .. ~ V',~ (). ... > r
l'" i~ ....- ~>',<! /-i-" ') ,j.,,,," ' " ...!.' ~ <J .'
r';, ,- , ,';:',Ie". ,.,,,,, t (",' '. ~ ..., ,':0... 4 ..
I 6J;"f...,.,., ',' ()t~;;: j,.~. ',.... ',-~ .1'. ' I " '" -,
:./ "'7lt,.,.;~' ~,' "~'. ..~~' ..,'3' &0.', " ;'~, .... (.5[}CK,..:.,:',.~,,:;';"05
I' / ',,, ,1'. "t.' ,. '~/ , .' ' ~...... ", ....." ~,' I'.
~___~. t ....~'Y.A ~'_~_~ .. "I[Q.,.. :~~_ .I .o....;~__'-~____..:i.
~
. ...
,:,,'..
j "
I~
2"4' ,\!'dSL
.
~ )~~~
. \l')~
~)(:/_/
".' .
,.-
/,
."
-
..... ~~
_._~'~.
n".,::
~ ~
.,..", ,Ji 'w
~
~
~ mm
j. '~,
5
75C-110
5/15/02
3.0
Vol 3
@]
8260.38 CH<:
CHAPTER 3. PRECISION FINAL AND
MISSED APPROACH SEGMENTS
FINAL SEGMENT.
The area originates 200 feet from L TP or FTP and ends at the PF AF (see
figure 3-1). The primary area consists of the "W" and "X" oes, and the
secondary area consists of the "'(" OCS.
Figure 3-1. Precision Obstacle Clearance Areas
.-.-.- -----1----. I
__- I .
--- .-.-..- .----- -.~~~~--- --.- t-----I
_.- - ---~~:..=~=-.- .-- '-WX. ocs j I
---.-----t=~=--.-- "N' ocs .;.:~-.-.---.------.-----l=~AF---=---
POFA 'I'T'-.--:'=:~==-~---~:::--~:~~=:=-~~i----I
I ---. ~--~__ :
r.....................-........ .' 50.200 feet"..................................~ '
: ~ \
"
PGPI '"
JI
.:,+-...... ".
..:!f~ii:.,litl:;:::::i.~r. .....
Cross Section At
200' from RWT
Cross S8ction At
50200' from RWT
AS8L
OCS Y
Y y.......... 1:7 X
1:7 X X 1:7 · 1:4
1:4 GaS 1:4 ~4
.~ \ W ./11.-- OCS LI ...........1
1300 3e01400!4001300 13001 Z500! 3876 2200 i 2200! 3876 !250~
..... 700 "'r 700 .; ~......... 6076 .......:....... 6076 ....--j
y
1:7
w
X
/0
I
Page
75C-111
3921 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 420
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
www.urbanstudio-la.lom
(213) 383.7980 ph
(213) 383.7981 JIU
RECE!VED
ocr 2 7 2004
John Kaliski AlA e 1~''1"AWrA ANA PlJ\NNING iJEPT
URBAN STUDIO
MEMORANDUM (via e-mail; original by post)
Date: October24,2004
To: Jay Trevino, Planning Manager
Vincent Fregoso, Senior Planner
From: John Kaliski, Principal
Re: Main and Macarthur Pedestrian Bridge Analysis
Objective of Analysis
City of Santa Ana planning staff asked Urban Studio to review the potential and cost of a
pedestrian bridge at the intersection of Main Street and Macarthur Boulevard. The objective of this
initial study is to preliminarily understand the impacts and potential costs of providing a pedestrian
link between existing and proposed commercial and residential development to the east and west
of Macarthur Boulevard at the intersection of Imperial Promenade.
Methodology
Urban Studio, utilizing aerial maps available on the internet and survey and footprint drawings
provided by Nexus (developers of Macarthur Place to the east) and Coastal Rim Properties
(developers of Geneva Commons to the west) prepared a base map including building footprints
and topographical elevations of existing and proposed development in the immediate vicinity of the
intersection of Macarthur Boulevard with Imperial Promenade (see attached Figure 1). Utilizing the
base map, Urban Studio developed six alternative layouts for pedestrian bridges (see attached
Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Key assumptions for the pedestrian bridge alternatives included the following:
1. Maintain minimum vertical clearance of 15'-0" at Macarthur Boulevard.
2. Pedestrian bridges must be accessible via elevators and/or ramps.
3. Design will utilize a standard bridge system. Urban Studio contacted and obtained
information from Continental Bridge Company in Alexandria, Minnesota regarding
pedestrian bridge systems and unit costs.
4. Design should minimally impact existing and proposed structures.
CU P 04-241DA 04-3fTTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-111Z0A 04-5
E~~~ge-112
0210A 041025 JK_JT.M.doc II Page 1 of4
Once the alternatives were developed Urban Studio developed an order of magnitude cost
estimate for each of the alternatives (see attachment). Costs were developed utilizing unit costs
obtained from Continental Bridge, additional unit costs obtained from RSMeans, Bui/dina
Construction Cost Data (2004) and previous experience developing costs. The cost estimate is an
order of magnitude estimate only, was prepared using a standard of care consistent with that
degree of skill ordinarily exercised by members of the architecture profession practicing under
similar conditions and should be further reviewed at every subsequent implementation step to
assure its usefulness.
Utilizing the alternatives described below and the cost estimates, this findings memorandum was
then prepared.
Alternatives
Urban Studio prepared six alternative approaches to bridge Macarthur Boulevard as follows:
Option 1 - this option spans Macarthur Boulevard diagonally from the southeast corner to the
northwest corner of the intersection with Imperial Promenade. This scheme is estimated to cost
approximately $1,500,000. Access to the pedestrian bridge is via stairs and/or elevators. The chief
advantage of this option is that the landings are directly associated with the proposed
developments, Macarthur Place and Geneva Commons. The major disadvantages of this scheme
are that the length of the span is maximized and access is via elevators, increasing first costs.
Option 2 - this option is similar to Option 1. To reduce costs one stair and one elevator are
replaced by a ramp at the northwest landing. The ramp is placed in this location to minimize
interference with proposed Macarthur Place retail components. The estimated cost of this option is
$1,250,000.
Option 3 - this option places a short span bridge at the south leg of the intersection of Macarthur
Place with Imperial Promenade. Reducing the span from the diagonal configuration reduces the
cost to $1,250,000.
Option 4 - this option is similar to Option 3, and has a similar cost ($1,250,000) but places the
span at the northern leg of the intersection. Both Option 3 and 4 require that a third party, either the
existing hotel or the existing retail center participate in the conception and implementation of the
pedestrian bridge.
Option 5 - this option is similar to Option 3 and Option 4 but substitutes accessible ramps for
elevators and stairs. This reduces estimated costs to $850,000. Based upon preliminary review of
the options, the major advantage of this option is its lowest cost. The major disadvantage is the
requirement to work with an additional private party with regard to implementation.
Option 6 - this option provides the pedestrian bridge connection at the far northern leg of the
intersection as well as an elevator and stair that links the Geneva Place podium level and/or
parking levels directly to surrounding uses on both sides of the street. The location of the
pedestrian bridge is designed to link with the most public portions of the amenity deck provided by
the developer of Geneva Common while maintaining a private pool area at this level for the
residents of this project. The goal of this option is to recognize that bringing people back to street
level from pedestrian bridge levels may not optimize pedestrian utilization of surrounding amenities
0210A 041025 JK_JT.M.doc II Page 2of4
750'-113
that newer projects are providing. In essence, as suburban areas density, pedestrian activity does
not by definition occur at traditional sidewalks along major street edges such as Macarthur
Boulevard and pedestrian orientation and activity may be better optimized if directly associated
with amenities, such as landscaped podium levels, that developers are willing to provide.
Introducing an elevator and stairs increases costs, in comparison to Option 5, to an estimated $1.3
million. .
Findings and Recommendations
A pedestrian bridge connecting developments to the east and west of Macarthur Boulevard in the
vicinity of Imperial Promenade is feasible in that adequate setbacks on both sides of the street
exist and allow placement of varying combinations of bridge spans, elevators, ramps and stairs.
Depending upon the type of bridge chosen, the degree of architectural finish desired and the
combination of access components such as ramps wanted to achieve connectivity, order of
magnitude costs will range from $850,000 to $1.500,000. These are preliminary cost estimates and
should be confirmed at each step of any subsequent implementation process.
During the past two decades normative urban design practice has de-emphasized multi-level
pedestrian access, i.e. skyway systems and pedestrian bridges, in all but the most dense urban
situations and cities with extreme weather conditions. However, facilitating more direct pedestrian
connections through the use of pedestrian bridges in evolving suburban areas, such as that found
in the Macarthur Place and Geneva Commons area, may improve the sense of place if pedestrian
connections such as bridges are designed to directly link and reinforce amenities such as retail and
open space. A good case study where this type of synergy can be found is in the original portions
of the master planned community of Valencia, California, where an extensive pedestrian paseo
and bridge system connects residential neighborhoods to activity centers such as the mall. Unlike
Valencia, at Macarthur Place and Geneva Commons, the pedestrian link is being conceived after
the designs are largely complete, and maximizing pedestrian connectivity will require evolution of
both designs to maximize pedestrian orientation along any above-grade linkage.
The key advantage of a pedestrian bridge link at Macarthur Boulevard and Imperial Promenade is
that it lessens the degree of existing and future pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at a major
automobile-oriented intersection. The disadvantages of this link are that proposed projects that are
well underway will require redesign to maximize the linkage opportunity, implementation including
the bearing of the cost will require cooperation of several property owners and private interests as
well as the City, and that if developed as an isolated case, rather than a long term approach
required of all projects, a confusing and inconsistent pedestrian network in relationship to
surrounding uses may result.
The City has several choices at this point in time:
1. The City can require that a pedestrian study of the affected intersection and surrounds be
conducted to determine if a pedestrian bridge is justified based upon existing and future
pedestrian counts, and if justified work with the developers and surrounding property
owners to implement a bridge. However, previous experience working on crosswalk safety
projects suggests that present and future volumes of pedestrians in this location will not
warrant a grade separated pedestrian link and that pedestrian vehicle conflicts can be
managed through adjustments to signal phasing at this intersection.
0210A 041025 JK_JT.M.doc II Page 30f4
rsCt.114
2. The City can require that a specific pedestrian link be provided at this location to increase
the synergy of adjacent projects and developments in which case developers and the City
should cooperate to maximize the linkage opportunity by adjusting the design of proposed
projects.
3. The City can develop a long-term vision for mobility induding mass transit, walking and
bicyding in evolving suburban areas that maximizes user connectivity between projects as
they are incrementally developed. This policy approach should provide standards and
thresholds for pedestrian linkages such as sidewalks, pathways and bridges and dearly
delineate the relationship and use of streets, sidewalks, bridges and open space to new
and existing development and land uses.
Given that development at Macarthur Place and Geneva Commons will not preclude future
development of a pedestrian bridge and that a bridge will constitute a substantial cost that was not
originally anticipated, Urban Studio recommends that some combination of Recommendation 1
and Recommendation 3 be implemented at this time.
0210A 041025 J~JT.M.doc II Page 4 of4
paYSC-115
j
'.'-:---..-
3QV'N3INOl:ld lV'11:l3dlNl
"",
'-,
""',
"''''' "
....'-.....'---.---.......//..--..-
'~
\
\~-
~1
II ~
r
.
"+
Oo~
-!;tg C!
C "'0>
:)3'" l!
t-~~ ;
U)~~a~ ~"
Z l! ..2;;; Iii~
~ H~~ ~~
m~~~ ZIii
a: c;:; :g<'i<'i ::!!c
=.t ~...Jc;~ LLC
I
II
II
I
I
I
L_____d
I~o
...
II
~~ cD
!<lg
0411
U)
C
o
-'" E
.~
" 0
~
CD
",j C
CD
~
.......
8
as
a::
...
:s
'-" .s::
.~_._- t:=
<t
.~
,...
"'8
~jli
;;~S
"'8'" E
.: :::I
~I~
~III
"$-
o
a::
~
>
W
...J
::>
o
CCl
a::
::>
:r:
f-
a::
~
()
~
:E
(( -----1
~.r
!~
:Sa:
aQ)
.- ....
U-Vi
7SCS-1~ 6
l~J
~~.-~..- ,
'-----..
,.
'4>
'$
!
i
~
Q.
E
..
""
~
"
c:
..
~ 15
",1'0
0>>
:g.!!
...'"
-~
to
s'ii
"'-
..v>
o~
N
c::
0
g
----:-. -.- '-<.--~---~.'"-~"':--)
o.
I~'.~
I .L_"I
I II
I II
L____dJ
-----.-.'.. . ._~..,----.
~
.s
..
>
'"
~ ",UJ
~~
cii~
~,~
o to
li'V;
ON
~ O. ( i
'6C~117
Og~
Q"~ ~
;:) l!l ..
I-(I)E lij
'0 ..
CJH~~ 1:..
ClIO ill~
Zl;di ..~
<C j ....,'" !es
IIh.rn! Z::
a:.....,;.,; W~
;:)lllS..(;i ~~
Ig.
deD
UJ
r::
o
E
E
o
o
as
>
CD
r::
CD
CJ
........
CD
(J
as
-
a..
...
::s
.c
~
<C
u
as
:E
rj j
~!llii
III ! ~ lii
g'8E~
il.:!1
~:lll
~ IIII
C\I
CD
...
::s
C)
u:
1;,
~
\~
(r-_"\,
\,-~
,-/
',,--
(
I
~ \"
:l
~
~
CD
C
o
.~
o
L
.._-C' '--""~~.___
,
~
- t ---- ---'<~
I c' j v
,-
L,
L_JII
I
~
-'-'
-<:
\ ~
'-.. z
8.
31
"$- .<;
..
5:1
· a:-------- ~ ~
IV ~ 1(11 oli[ j~
- - ----::-...- ""... ""-.,
~
-.---....,-
~~
'\_ ~ 1;:
8,!!
."UJ
.", ~ ~
'IT <ae
e ..
i). ~ rr;~.lr i~
75C~ 18
\:.~-~-,.....
t
~
B
<<I
>
..
EiLi
'"
'8;
CL.1;
&.:;
31"
co Vi
-m-
&~
o E
'5'"
a~
o 0
-c~g q
CD" -
:J~-!! !!
....~~ :
cn~15.<:~ 1"
m(3O'.... :Q
z~ .0_ ....
<C 'd~~ ~~
m~~~ ~::
!:E N ....;..; ~~
oJ t1l.9NN G:Q
I~.
;i cD
t/)
c
o
E
E
o
o
as
i)
c
Q)
<:J
.......
Q)
()
as
-
a.
...
::J
.c
1::
<t
()
as
::E
g' C f
'fi~--C
- '" l' lD
"5 b I;
lD ! ... Ii
""8E1:
~I.=i
;( '8i
III Q,Q,
~ IIII
C')
Q)
...
::J
C)
u:
MAIN AND MACARTHUR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL COST ANALYSIS
10/25104
URBAN STUDIO
I Cost Assumptions and Allowances
Span
Elevators
Elevator Structure
Steel Stairs
Concrete Ramp
Architectural Allowance
Construction Contingency
Design Fees
Construction 0 & P
Permits & Fees
Other Contingencies
$ 1200 per lineal foot
$ 65 000 per hydraulic ele
$ 100 000 per elevator alia
$ 30,000 per stair allowan
$ SOD oer If allowance
at 15% I
20% of construction
10% of construction
20% of construction
2% of construction
20% allowance for co
vator, cab and controls
wance
ce
of basic costs for design features, lighting, etc
cost
cost
cost
cost
nstruction management, legal, easements, etc.
Pedestrian Bridge Alternatives Cost Estimates
Option
Description
1 2 3 4 5 6
diagonal diagonal east-west east-west east-west east-west
bridge wI 2 bridge wl1 bridge wI 2 bridge w/2 bridge wi 2 bridge @ north
elevators ramp and 1 elevators at elevators at ramps @! north leg wI podium
elevator south leg north leg leg connection
,I 245 I 245 1 170 170 1 170 I 190
1$ 294 000 I $ 294 000 I $ 204 000 $ 204 000 I $ 204 000 1$ 228 000
2 I 1 I 2 2 I 0 I 1
$ 330 000 I $ 165 000 I $ 330 000 $ 330 000 I $ - 1$ 250 000
260,000 I $ 130,000 I $ 260,000 I $ ~.ooo I $
o
1$
1SO,OOO I
Span (If)
Span Cost $
Elevators
Elevator Cost
Stairs I
Stair Cost $
Ramp (If)
Ramp Cost
Basic Ramp Cost
Architectural Allowance
Construction Cost
Construction Contingency
Bridge Construction Allowance
Design Fees
Construction 0 & P
Permits & Fees
Other Contingencies
Preliminary Project costl $
I 0 205 0 1 0 410 205 I
r$ - $ 102 500 $ - 1$ - $ 205 000 $ 102500 I
$ 684 000 $ 591,500 $ 594 000 $ 594 000 $ 409 000 $ 630 500
$ 102,600 $ 88n5 $ 89 100 $ 89,100 $ 61 350 $ 94,575
$ 786 600 $ 680 225 $ 683 100 $ 683 100 $ 470 350 $ 725 075
$ 157,320 $ 136,045 $ 136,620 $ 136,620 $ 94,070 $ 145,015
$ 943.920 $ 816,270 S 819.720 $ 819,720 S 564,420 $ 870.090
$ 78 660 $ 68 023 $ 68 310 $ 68 310 $ 47 035 $ nS08
$ 188 784 $ 163 254 $ 163 944 $ 163 944 $ 112884 $ 174018
$ 18878 $ 16 325 $ 16 394 $ 16 394 $ 11288 $ 17 402
$ 188784 $ 163254 $ 163 944 $ 163 944 $ 112884 $ 174018
1.419.0261 $ 1.227.1261 $ 1.232,3121 $ 1.232.3121 $
848.511 I $
1.308.035 l
'5~f~119
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24
November 22, 2004
Page 1 of 1
Findings of Fact
A.
Will the proposed
contribute to the
community?
use provide a
general well
service or
being of
facility which will
the neighborhood or
The proposed private health facility for the Geneva Commons
project will provide a service to the residents by making
fitness equipment and community meeting space available for the
future tenants. Conditions of approval have been included to
ensure the facilities are available for the homeowners only.
B. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the particular case
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity?
The proposed health facility will not be detrimental to persons
residing and working in the area as the use will not create any
negative or adverse impacts but will provide an additional
amenity to the Geneva Commons development.
C. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties surrounding
the area?
The proposed facility will be situated within the Geneva
Commons development. This amenity will reinforce the economic
viability of the project and will assist in identifying the
project as a viable residential community.
D. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions
specified in Chapter 41 for such use?
The project will be ln compliance with all applicable
provisions of Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code as well as the provisions of the SD-43 zoning district.
E. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The proposed project will not adversely affect the General Plan
as residential development and ancillary uses are permitted
within the District Center (DC) general plan designation.
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR04-6~~~i~4-5
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 1 OF 10
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 is approved subject to compliance, to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative
Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other
applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following
conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior
to exercising the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the development project. Failure to comply with
each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional
use permit approval.
Conditions of Approval
A. Planning Division
1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan
Review approval of DP No. 02-36.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will
determine if administrative relief is available or the
conditional use permit must be amended.
3. The finish materials on the lower levels of the residential
buildings must consist of a sandstone material subject to the
review and approval of the Planning Manager.
4. A floor plan of each floor showing the layout of the units must
be submitted to the Planning Division for review. Units cannot
have bedrooms and bathrooms back to an adjacent unit.
5. A storage plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for
approval. The plan shall indicate the location and square
footage of storage space for each unit, with a minimum of 128
cubic square feet devoted to each unit.
CUPO~24roAO~3nTMO~5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11fZ.OA O~5
EXHIBIT 14
75C-121
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE20FIO
6. A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking
stalls will function must be submitted prior to building plan
check. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R I s) that
restrict truck delivery hours to non-peak periods shall be
submitted prior to building plan check.
7. A Sign Program addressing signage on the south elevation of
the parking structure must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval prior to submittal into building plan
check. The sign program shall include details of the signage
(text, materials) on the parking structure as well as a
maintenance plan delineating the long-term repair and
replacement of any graphic.
8. The proj ect shall incorporate on-site professional property
management for both the residential and commercial components.
9. Balconies for the proj ect shall maintain a minimum dimension
of not less than six feet in any direction.
10. A fireplace shall be provided within each common area lobby
for the project.
11. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
provided for the proj ect. At a minimum, the CC&R' s shall
include provisions pertaining to owner occupancy, restrictions
on home based businesses, and the prohibition of storage on
balconies.
12. A Public Art Plan which proposes a specific work(s) of art for
a specific location{s) shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and approval. All public art approved
by the Planning Commission shall be completely installed prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.
13. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior
to issuance of any building permits. In addition to the
landscaping palette, the plan shall include details on the
hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for
the retail area and private podium.
75C-122
NOVEMBER 22,2004
PAGE30FIO
14. The following items must be included as interior amenities
within each unit and the common areas: Concierge services for
the residents, granite counter tops, hardwood flooring,
General Electric Monogram appliances or equivalent, tiled
bathroom and shower walls , individual laundry hook-ups, gas
fireplaces, high-end furniture and equipment within the
resident lounge and fitness center. The exact specifications
for these items are subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Manager.
15. The following items must be included as exterior amenities for
the development: Enhanced paving on the walkways and central
courtyard, palm trees along First American Way, an outdoor
fireplace and barbeque on the amenity deck, at least one water
feature on the amenity deck. The exact specifications for
these items are subj ect to the review and approval of the
Planning Manager.
16. A minimum of 7,000 square feet of private storage space shall
be provided within the parking deck. The storage space shall
be divided among all homeowners and shall be provided at no
cost to the residents.
Mitigation Measures
17. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered
to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering with complete
coverage shall occur at least twice daily, once in the late
morning and once after work is done for the day.
18. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during
period of high winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over
one hour) or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes.
19. Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the
end of each day of construction.
20. All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently
watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust.
21. The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork
activities shall be minimized at all times.
75C-123
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 4 OF 10
22. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in
proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications.
23. To the extent feasible, gasoline powered equipment shall be
used for onsite and offsite construction activities.
24. In the event unknown cultural resources are encountered during
construction operations, all construction activity within the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall halt and the City's
Environmental Coordinator shall be contacted for appropriate
action.
25. Any material collected shall be donated to a local
institution, which has the proper facilities for curation,
display and use by interested parties. The discovery shall be
described in a report, which receives sufficient distribution
to insure its availability to future researchers.
26. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
submit for review and approval a surface drainage/grading
plan/erosion control plan, prepared by registered Civil
Engineer, showing the direction and means of flow to adjacent
streets. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adj acent to all property lines. Drainage
routed to the street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and
through the curb.
27.
All design recommendations
investigation prepared by
incorporated into design
construction.
identified in the geotechnical
T.E.L.A., April 2003 shall be
plans and implemented during
28. Prior to grading, existing vegetation, trash, surface
structures and debris shall be removed and disposed off-site
at a legal dumpsite. Any existing utility lines, or other
subsurface structures, which are not to be utilized should be
removed, destroyed, or abandoned in compliance with current
governmental regulations and concurrence from T.E.L.A.
29. Subsequent to clean up operations and prior to initial
grading, a reasonable search should be made for subsurface
obstructions and/or possible loose fill or detrimental soil
types. This search should be conducted by the contractor,
with advice from and under the observation of a representative
of T.E.L.A.
75C-124
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 5 OF 10
30. Prior to the placement of fill or foundations within the
building area, the site should be prepared in accordance with
the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation Section
of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by T.E.L.A.
in April of 2003. Fill should be spread in 6 to 8 inch lifts
and should be moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation
section. All undocumented fill or disturbed soils within the
building areas should be removed and compacted under
observation and testing of a representative of T.E.L.A.
31. The exposed subgrade and/or excavation bottom should be
observed and approved by a representative of T.E.L.A. for
conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented
in the geotechnical report and prior to any further processing
or fill placement.
32. On-site inorganic granular soils that are free of debris or
contamination are considered suitable for placement as
compacted fill. A representative of T.E.L.A. shall provide
guidance for acceptability and placement of on-site clay fill
materials.
33. Observation and field tests shall be performed during grading
by a representative of T.E.L.A. in order to assist the
contractor in obtaining the proper moisture content and
required degree of compaction. Where less than the required
degree if compaction indicated, additional compactive effort
any necessary adjustments in the moisture content of the soil
should be made to obtain the required compaction.
34. To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design
elevations, footing excavations should be observed to be clean
of loosened soil and debris before placing steel or concrete
and probed for soft areas. If soft or loose soils or
unsatisfactory materials are encountered, these materials
should be removed and replaced with compacted fill.
35. Wherever, in the opinion of a representative of T.E.L.A, as
unsatisfactory condition is being created in any area, whether
by cutting or filling, then the work should not proceed in
that area until the condition has been corrected.
75C-125
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 6 OF 10
36. Prior to approval of final design plans, the project applicant
shall submit the proposed project to the Orange County Airport
Land Use Commission for review and consistency of FAA criteria
and regulations.
37. Prior to approval of final design plans, the project applicant
shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction with the FAA.
Conditions placed on the project by the FAA shall be
incorporated in the final design and construction of the
proposed project.
38. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall provide proof of coverage under NPDES General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, which includes a
copy of the project permit number and two copies of the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
39. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall provide a NPDES post construction storm water
management plan per Orange County Drainage Area Management
Plan (DAMP) that includes all Structural and Non-Structural
Best Management Practices for the proposed project.
40. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan to
include all structural Best Management Practices.
41. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
that includes a description of all-applicable Structural and
Non-Structural Best Management Practices, which would apply to
this project.
42. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant
shall receive approval of NPDES Permit for the State Regional
Water Quality Control Board for the proposed on-site
dewatering operations.
43. Building plans for the proposed proj ect shall reflect that
restaurant uses be fitted with a grease interceptor to the
size and capacity as designated by the Building Safety
Division of the City of Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on the
local sanitary sewer system and regional water quality. Such
grease interceptor shall be regularly maintained so as to
remain fully functional.
75C-126
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE70F10
44. The proposed proj ect would be subj ect to City of Santa Ana
Federal Clean Water Protection Enterprise Fees.
45. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proj ect applicant
shall submit a final surface water runoff evaluation for
review and approval showing existing and proposed facilities
and methods of draining the site without exceeding the
capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility.
46.
Prior to the issuance of building
applicant shall be responsible for the
storm drain systems.
permits, the project
construction of onsite
47. Prior to the recordation of a final subdivision map or the
issuance of any grading permits, an Acoustical Analysis Report
shall be submitted to the City of Santa Ana Engineering
Department for approval. The Acoustical Analysis Report shall
describe the acoustical design features of the structures
required to satisfy an interior noise level of no more than 45
dBA CNEL. In addition, the Acoustical Analysis Report shall
contain satisfactory evidence indicating that the sound
attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical
reports have been incorporated into the design of the project.
These measures are applicable to those residential units that
directly overlook Macarthur Boulevard and/or the SR-55
Freeway. Such measures could include (but not be limited to)
the inclusion of forced-air ventilation allowing window and
doors to remain shut, the use of acoustic-rated windows and/or
sliding door assemblies, a reduction in the physical size of
the windows and/or sliding doors, the use of solid core
exterior doors, the use of gaskets and seals on all external
doors and windows, and any other measures deemed acceptable to
the City of Santa Ana that will attain the 45-dBA CNEL
interior noise level.
48. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and
tuned to minimize noise emissions.
49. All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers
and air intake silencers no less efficient than those
originally installed.
75C-127
NOVEMBER 22,2004
PAGE80F10
50. The pile-driving equipment shall be enclosed on all sides with
an acoustical blanket barrier that provides a minimum sound
transmission class (STC) rating of 30. The height of the
blanketed enclosure shall be at least 20 feet tall. With the
exception of ingress/egress, there shall be no openings or
gaps in the enclosure and ingress/egress points are to remain
closed during pile driving activities. All noise-producing
equipment shall be located no closer than 6 feet from the
blanket barrier.
51. All stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and
compressors) and servicing of equipment shall be located as
far from external land uses as is feasible.
52. The name and contact number of a contact person shall be
posted on-site.
53. Construction shall be subj ect to any and all provisions set
forth by the City of Santa Ana Planning Division.
54.
Prior to issuance of Building
shall submit a Security Plan
approval.
Permits,
to the
the proj ect appl icant
Police department for
55. A minimum 12-inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be
installed at each stair landing. All doors leading into
stairwells shall be equipped with a minimum 5-inch by 20-inch
fire related window. The last flight of stairs shall be fully
enclosed at its base.
56. The proposed project structure shall be designed in accordance
with the City of Santa Ana Parking Structure Standards.
57. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum 1 foot-
candle of light.
58. All elevators serving the residential component of the project
shall be equipped with card readers at the garage levels to
restrict unauthorized access into the residential towers. The
elevator lobbies shall be designed and constructed of material
that allows maximum visibility of the interior of the lobby
from the parking decks. Glazing material shall be used to its
maximum extent.
75C-128
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE90FIO
59. The elevator adjacent to drop-off area shall be designed with
a glass backed elevator cab.
60. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
developer shall submit evidence to the City of Santa Ana of a
fee payment between the developer and the SAUSD to offset
school facility related impacts.
61. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy permits the
project developer shall meet Municipal Code Parkland
requirements through the dedication of land and/or the payment
of park impact fees, as determined by the Planning Division.
62.
63.
Prior to the issuance of building
applicant shall provide a fair share
restriping of the southbound approach
provide one exclusive left turn lane,
lane and one exclusive right turn lane.
permits the project
contribution for the
along Grand Avenue to
one shared left turn
Prior to the issuance of building
applicant shall provide a fair share
restriping of the southbound approach of
provide two exclusive left turn lanes,
through lane and dual right lanes.
permits, the project
contribution for the
Imperial Promenade to
a shared left turn-
64. The project applicant shall be subject to Transportation
System Improvement Fees and San Joaquin Hills corridor Fees.
65. Prior to final approval of the proposed project by the City of
Santa Ana, the project applicant shall receive all necessary
approvals from the FAA and the Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission.
66.
Prior to the issuance
applicant shall coordinate
Department regarding the
proposed water distribution
of grading permits, the project
with the City of Santa Ana Water
depths, locations and sizes of
facilities.
67. Water conservation measures recommended by the State
Department of Water Resources and applicable state laws
requiring the use of water-efficient plumbing fixtures and
recommendations for low-water-using landscape shall be
incorporated into the project design as appropriate. GPM are
prohibited.
75C-129
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 10 OF 10
B. Police Department
1. A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at
the plan check stage for approval. The plan must cover all
aspects of the projects security including security personnel,
surveillance equipment, and hardware. The proj ect will be
required to have a minimum of four state licensed uniformed
security personnel. One security officer will be required for
each building, one for the podium level and one for the
parking garage.
2. A minimum 12 - inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be
installed at each stair landing. All doors leading into
stairwells shall be equipped with a minimum 5-inch by 20-inch
fire rated window. The last flight of stairs shall be fully
enclosed at its base.
3. The City of Santa Ana parking structure design standards shall
be followed in its entirety. Duress alarms allowing voice
communication with security personnel shall be placed in
strategic locations, approved by the Police Department,
throughout the parking garage.
4. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum
maintained 1 footcandle of light.
5. All elevators serving the residential component of the project
shall be equipped with card readers at the garage levels to
restrict unauthorized access into the residential towers. The
elevator lobbies shall be designed and constructed of material
that allows maximum visibility of the interior of the lobby
from the parking decks. Glazing material will be used to its
maximum extent.
6. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed at six months, at
one year and then annually thereafter by the Police Department
for any modification to the conditions of approval.
7. Elevator adj acent to drop-off shall be designed with a glass
backed elevator cab.
75C-130
Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05
November 22, 2004
Page 1 of 2
Findings of Fact
A. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements
are consistent with the District Center designation on the General
Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the
General Plan.
Tentati ve Tract Map No. 16556 is consistent with the land use
designation and density prescribed in the General Plan and will
have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area.
B. The proposed proj ect, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable
requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other
applicable City ordinances.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is in keeping with the provisions
of the site plan review (DP No. 04-26) and Chapters 34 and 41 of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the
subdivision of land and development standards for the site.
C. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the proposed project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is proposed for a 3.1-acre parcel
of land within the Specific Development Plan No. 43 (SD-43)
zoning district. This designation, as amended, permits the
construction of high-rise condominiums on the site. Therefore,
the site has been determined to be capable of supporting the
type and density of the proposed project.
D. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map
or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental
Review No. 2002-215 has been prepared for this project and has
identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any
environmental impact associated with this project.
CUP 04-241DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
EXHIBIT 15
75C-131
Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05
November 22, 2004
Page 2 of 2
E. The design or improvements of the proposed proj ect will not cause
serious public health problems.
The design and improvements associated with this project have
been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street
system has been designed to public street standards and will
accommodate emergency vehicles. All other improvements have
been designed to mitigate any serious problem resulting from
this project.
F. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict
with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through
or use of property within the proposed project.
Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 will not create
conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through
the subj ect property I as no such easements currently exist.
Public access will be allowed to the site through the entrance
and with homeowner authorization.
75C-132
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 1 OF2
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is approved subject to compliance, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable
sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative
Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other
applicable regulations.
The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed
below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract
map.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with
each and every condition may result in the revocation of the conditional
use permit.
A. Planning Division
1. Comply with all conditions and requirements from the Development
Review Committee (DRC) for the development project (DP 04-26) .
2. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R I s) for this
project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the
final tract map.
3. All real estate signage must be removed from the site within
one year from the date of installation. An extension of time
may be granted as determined by the Planning Manager.
4. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance
of building permits.
5. The final map and all improvements required to be made or
installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the
design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act.
6.
Development
development
issuance.
within the area of the map is subject to
and permit fees in effect at the time of permit
CU P 04-241DA 04-31TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
EXHIBIT 16
75C-133
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE20F2
7. Development wi thin the area of the map is subj ect to design
and development standards in effect at the time of permit
issuance.
8 .
Two copies of the
submitted each to
Building Division,
recordation.
recorded final map and CC&R' s shall be
the Planning Division, Fire Department,
and Public Works Agency within 10 days of
75C-134
Variance No. 2004-11
November 22, 2004
Page 1 of 1
Findings of Fact
A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found
to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at
variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this
chapter.
Due to the unique characteristics of the lot, including the
shape and 10-foot change in grade, the strict application of the
setback requirements would deprive the lot of development
privileges. In order to accommodate the required parking for
the project, a parking structure must be provided. The
application of the setback requirement would result in the
removal of parking for the residential development and a severe
parking shortage for the project. The reduced setback will be
mitigated through the addition and upgrading of architectural
and landscape materials within the remaining setback.
B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights.
The granting of the setback variance will allow the applicant
the ability to construct two new residential high-rise towers on
a site that is located within a master planner development.
C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.
The setback variance will not be detrimental to the
surrounding area as the setback will be landscaped to be
compatible with the setbacks of the development. Further, the
setback variance is consistent with a variance granted in 2000
for the DoubleTree Hotel located directly west of the project
site.
D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City.
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the
City's General Plan in any way as the land use designation of
District Center (DC) encourages the construction of high
intensity land uses such as the proposed Geneva Commons project.
CUP 04-24/DA 041~ 04-5
SPR 04-6~fil~~ f~ 04-5
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 1 OF2
Conditions of Approval
Variance No. 2004-11 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform
Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable
regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of
approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior
to exercising the rights conferred by this variance.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the development proj ect. Failure to comply with
each and every condition may result in the revocation of the variance.
A. Planning Division
1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan
Review approval of DP No. 02-36.
2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will
determine if administrative relief is available or the
conditional use permit must be amended.
3. The finish materials on the lower levels of the residential
buildings must consist of a sandstone material subject to the
review and approval of the Planning Manager.
4. A floor plan of each floor showing the layout of the units must
be submitted to the Planning Division for review. Units cannot
have bedrooms and bathrooms back to an adjacent unit.
5. A storage plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for
approval. The plan shall indicate the location and square
footage of storage space for each unit, with a minimum of 128
cubic square feet devoted to each unit.
6. A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking
stalls will function must be submitted prior to building plan
check. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that
restrict truck delivery hours to non-peak periods shall be
submitted prior to building plan check.
CU P 04-24/DA 04-31TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
F1W&J186
NOVEMBER 22,2004
PAGE20F2
7. A Sign Program addressing signage on the south elevation of
the parking structure must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval prior to submittal into building plan
check. The sign program shall include details of the signage
(text, materials) on the parking structure as well as a
maintenance plan delineating the long-term repair and
replacement of any graphic.
8. The proj ect shall incorporate on-site professional property
management for both the residential and commercial components.
9. Balconies for the proj ect shall maintain a minimum dimension
of not less than six feet in any direction.
10. A fireplace shall be provided within each common area lobby
for the project.
11. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
provided for the proj ect . At a minimum, the CC&R' s shall
include provisions pertaining to owner occupancy, restrictions
on home based businesses, and the prohibition of storage on
balconies.
12. A Public Art Plan which proposes a specific work(s) of art for
a specific location(s) shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and approval. All public art approved
by the Planning Commission shall be completely installed prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.
13. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior
to issuance of any building permits. In addition to the
landscaping palette, the plan shall include details on the
hardscape design, lighting concepts and outdoor furniture for
the retail area and private podium.
75C-137
NOVEMBER 22, 2004
PAGE 1 OF 1
Conditions of Approval
Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 is approved subject to compliance, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections
of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the
Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable
regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of
approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior
to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan approval.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below
throughout the life of the development proj ect. Failure to comply with
each and every condition may result in the revocation of the site plan
review approval.
A. Planning Division
1. The proj ect must remain in compliance with the provisions of
Site Plan Review (DP No. 02-36).
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
EXHIBIT 19
75C-138
GENEVA COMMONS MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ER-2002-215
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING AGENCY VERIFICATION
Grading plans for the Prior to Building/Planning
proposed project shall reflect Grading Agency
that during demolishing, Permits &
earthwork and hauling During
activities, the contractor shall Construction
control fugitive dust
emissions by regular
watering, or other dust-
preventive measures to the
extent feasible to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 403:
All material excavated or
graded will be sufficiently
watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust. Watering
with complete coverage shall
occur at least twice daily,
once in the late morning and
once after work is done for
the day.
All clearing and earthwork
activities shall cease during
period of high winds (winds
greater than 25 mph averaged
over one hour) or during
Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog
episodes.
Streets surrounding the
project site should be cleaned
at the end of each day of
construction.
All material transported
offsite shall either be
sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
The amount of area disturbed
by clearing and earthwork
1
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
7 5eiJ If 13 9l
activities shall be minimized
at all times.
Equipment engines shall be
maintained in good condition
and in proper tune according
to manufacturer's
specifications.
To the extent feasible,
gasoline powered equipment
shall be used for on site and
offsite construction activities.
In the event unknown cultural During Building/Planning
resources are encountered Construction Agency
during construction
operations, all construction
activity within the immediate
vicinity of the discovery shall
halt and the City's
Environmental Coordinator
shall be contacted for
appropriate action.
Any material collected shall During Building/Planning
be donated to a local Construction Agency
institution, which as the
proper facilities fir curation,
display and use by interested
parties. The discovery shall
be described in a report,
which receives sufficient
distribution to insure its
availability to future
researchers.
Prior to the issuance of a Prior to Public Works
grading permit the applicant Grading Agency
shall submit for review and Permit
approval a surface
drainage/grading plan/erosion
control plan, prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer,
showing the direction and
means of flow to adjacent
2
75C-140
streets. The plan is to include
existing and proposed
elevations at and adjacent to
all property lines. Drainage
routed to the street must be
directed beneath the sidewalk
and through the curb.
All design recommendations Prior to Building/Planning
identified in the geotechnical Grading Agency
investigation prepared by Permits &
T.E.L.A, April 2003 shall be During
incorporated into design Construction
plans and implemented
during construction.
Prior to grading, existing Prior to Building/Planning
vegetation, trash, surface Grading Agency
structures and debris shall be
removed and disposed off-
site at a legal dumpsite. Any
existing utility lines, or other
subsurface structures, which
are not to be utilized should
be removed, destroyed, or
abandoned in compliance
with current governmental
regulations and concurrence
from T.E.L.A.
Subsequent to clean up Prior to Building/Planning
operations, and prior to initial Grading Agency
grading, a reasonable search
should be made for
subsurface obstructions
and/or possible loose fill or
detrimental soil types. This
search should be conducted
by the contractor, with advice
from and under the
observation of a
representative of T .E.L.A.
Prior to the placement of fill During Building/Planning
or foundations within the Construction Agency
building area, the site should
3
75C-141
be prepare in accordance with
the recommendations
presented in the Site
Preparation Section of the
Geotechnical Investigation
Report prepared by T.E.L.A.
in April of2003. Fill should
be spread in 6 to 8 inch lifts
and should be moisture
conditioned and compacted
in accordance with the
recommendations presented
in the Site Preparation
section. All undocumented
fill or disturbed soils within
the building areas should be
removed and compacted
under observation and testing
of a representative of
T.E.L.A.
The exposed sub grade and/or During BuildingIPlanning
excavation bottom should be Construction Agency
observed and approved by a
representative ofT.E.L.A. for
conformance with the intent
of the recommendations
presented in the geotechncial
report and prior to any further
processing or fill placement.
Onsite inorganic granular During BuildingIPlanning
soils that are free of debris or Construction Agency
contamination are considered
suitable for placement as
compacted fill. A
representative ofT.L.A. shall
provide guidance for
acceptability and placement
of on-site clay fill materials.
Observation and field tests During BuildingIPlanning
shall be performed during Construction Agency
grading by a representative of
T .L.A. in order to assist the
contractor in obtaining the
4
75C-142
proper moisture content and
required degree of
compaction. Where less than
the required degree if
compaction indicated,
additional compactive effort
any necessary adjustments in
the moisture content of the
soil should be made to obtain
the required compaction.
To evaluate the presence of During Building/Planning
satisfactory materials at Construction Agency
design elevations, footing
excavations should be
observed to be clean of
loosened soil and debris
before placing steel or
concrete and probed for soft
areas. If soft or loose soils or
unsatisfactory materials are
encountered, these materials
should be removed and
replaced with compacted fill.
Wherever, in the opinion of a During Building/Planning
representative ofT.E.L.A, as Construction Agency
unsatisfactory condition is
being created in any area,
whether by cutting or filling,
then the work should not
proceed in that area until the
condition has been corrected.
Prior to approval of final Prior to Building/Planning
design plans, the project approval of Agency
applicant shall submit the final design
proposed proj ect to the plans
Orange County Airport Land
Use Commission for review
and consistency of FAA
criteria and regulations.
Prior to approval of final Prior to Building/Planning
design plans, the project approval of Agency
5
75C-143
applicant shall file a Notice final design
of Proposed Construction plans
with the FAA. Conditions
placed on the project by the
FAA shall be incorporated in
the final design and
construction of the proposed
project.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Public Works
grading permits, the project Grading Agency
applicant shall provide proof Permits
of coverage under NPDES
General construction Activity
Storm Water Permit, which
includes a copy of the project
permit number and two
copies of the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Public Works
grading permits, the project Grading Agency
applicant shall prepare an Permits
NPDES post-construction
storm water management
plan per Orange County
Drainage Area Management
Plan (DAMP) that includes
all structural and non-
structural Best Management
Practices for the project.
a. Submit and have
approved a surface
drainage/utility plan to
include all structural Best
management Practices.
b. Provide two copies
of the Water Quality
Management Plan
(WQMP) that
includes a
description of all-
applicable
Structural and Non-
6
75C-144
Structural Best
Management
Practices, which
would apply to this
project.
Building plans for the Prior to Building/Planning
proposed project shall reflect Building Agency
that restaurant uses be fitted Permits
with a grease interceptor to
the size and capacity as
designated by the Building
Safety Division of the City of
Santa Ana to mitigate
impacts on the local sanitary
sewer system and regional
water quality. Such grease
interceptor shall be regularly
maintained so as to remain
fully functional.
The proposed project would Prior to Public Works
be subject to City of Santa Building Agency
Ana Federal Clean Water Permits
Protection Enterprise Fees.
Prior to issuance of a grading Prior to Public Works
permit, the project applicant grading Agency
shall submit a final surface Permits
water runoff evaluation for
review and approval showing
existing and proposed
facilities and methods of
draining the site without
exceeding the capacity of any
street or adjacent storm drain
facility.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Public Works
building permits the project Building Agency
applicant shall be responsible Permits
for the construction of onsite
storm drain systems.
Prior to the recordation of a Prior to Building/Planning
final subdivision map or the Grading Agency
issuance of any grading Permits
7
75C-145
permits, an Acoustical
Analysis Report shall be
submitted to the City of Santa
Ana Engineering Department
for approval. The Acoustical
Analysis Report shall
describe the acoustical design
features ofthe structures
required to satisfy an interior
noise level of no more than
45 dBA CNEL. In addition,
the Acoustical Analysis
Report shall contain
satisfactory evidence
indicating that the sound
attenuation measures
specified in the approved
acoustical reports have been
incorporated into the design
ofthe project. These
measures are applicable to
those residential units that
directly overlook Macarthur
Boulevard and/or the SR-55
Freeway. Such measures
could include (but not be
limited to):
The inclusion of forced-air
ventilation allowing window
and doors to remain shut,
The use of acoustic-rated
windows and/or sliding door
assemblies,
A reduction in the physical
size of the windows and/or
sliding doors,
The use of solid core exterior
doors,
The use of gaskets and seals
on all external doors and
windows, and
8
75C-146
Any other measures deemed
acceptable to the City of
Santa Ana that will attain the
45-dBA CNEL interior noise
level.
All construction equipment During Building/Planning
shall be properly maintained Construction Agency
and tuned to minimize noise
emISSIons,
All equipment shall be fitted During Building/Planning
with properly operating Construction Agency
mufflers and air intake
silencers no less efficient
than those originally
installed,
The pile-driving equipment During Building/Planning
shall be enclosed on all sides Construction Agency
with an acoustical blanket
barrier that provides a
minimum sound transmission
class (STC) rating of 30. The
height of the blanketed
enclosure shall be at least 20
feet tall. With the exception
of ingress/egress, there shall
be no openings or gaps in the
enclosure and ingress/egress
points are to remain closed
during pile driving activities.
All noise-producing
equipment shall be located no
closer than 6 feet from the
blanket barrier,
All stationary noise sources During Building/Planning
(e.g., generators and Construction Agency
compressors) and servicing
of equipment shall be located
as far from extemalland uses
as is feasible,
The name and telephone During Building/Planning
9
75C-147
number of a contact person Construction Agency
shall be posted on-site, and
Construction shall be subject During Building/Planning
to any and all provisions set Construction Agency
forth by the City of Santa
Ana Planning Department.
Prior to issuance of Building Prior to Police
Permits, the project applicant Building Department
shall submit a Security Plan Permits
to the Police department for
approval.
A minimum 12-inch
shatterproof convex mirror
shall be installed at each stair
landing. All doors leading
into stairwells shall be
equipped with a minimum 5
inch by 20 inch fire related
window. The last flight of
stairs shall be fully enclosed
at its base.
The proposed proj ect
structure shall be designed in
accordance with the City of
Santa Ana Parking Structure
Standards.
All proj ect walkways shall be
illuminated to a minimum 1
foot-candle oflight.
All elevators serving the
residential component of the
project shall be equipped
with card readers at the
garage levels to restrict
unauthorized access into the
residential towers. The
elevator lobbies shall be
designed and constructed of
material that allows
maximum visibility of the
10
75C-148
interior of the lobby from the
parking decks. Glazing
material shall be used to its
maximum extent.
The elevator adj acent to
drop-off area shall be
designed with a glass backed
elevator cab.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Building/Planning
building permits, the project issuance of Agency
developer shall submit Building
evidence to the City of Santa Permits
Ana of a fee payment
between the developer and
the SAUSD to offset school
facility related impacts.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Building/Planning
certificate of occupancy Certificate of Agency
permits the project developer Occupancy
applicant shall meet
Municipal Code Parkland
requirements through the
dedication of land and/or the
payment of park impact fees,
as determined by the
Planning Department.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Public Works
building permits the project Building Agency
applicant shall provide a fair Permits
share contribution for the
restriping of the southbound
approach along Grand
A venue to provide one
exclusive left turn lane, one
shared left turn lane and one
exclusive right turn lane.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Public Works
building permits the project Building Agency
applicant shall provide a fair Permits
share contribution for the
restriping of the southbound
11
75C-149
approach oflmperial
Promenade to provide two
exclusive left turn lanes, a
shared left turn-through lane
and dual right lanes.
The project applicant shall be Prior to Public Works
subject to Transportation Building Agency
System Improvement Fees Permits
and San Joaquin Hills
corridor Fees.
Prior to final approval of the Prior to Final Building/planning
proposed project by the City approval from Agency
of Santa Ana, the project City Council
applicant shall receive
all necessary approvals from
the FAA and the Orange
County Airport Land Use
Commission.
Prior to the issuance of Prior to Public Works
grading permits. The project Grading Agency
applicant shall coordinate Permits
with the City of Santa Ana
Water Department regarding
the depths, locations and
sizes of proposed water
distribution facilities.
Water conservation measures Prior to Public Works
recommended by the State Grading Agency
Department of Water Permits
Resources and applicable
state laws requiring the use of
water-efficient plumbing
fixtures and
recommendations for low-
water-using landscape shall
be incorporated into the
proj ect design as appropriate.
Recycling bins for glass, During Building/Planning
metals, paper, wood, plastic, Construction Agency
12
75C-150
green waste and cardboard
shall be placed on the
construction sites for use by
construction workers.
13
75C-151
e
California R( ~onal Water Quality ( )ntrol Hoard
Santa Ana Region
Terry Tamminen
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
December 15, 2003
3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348
(909) 782-4130. Fax (909) 781-6288
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8
Q ~ @ ~ D ~ ~ ~\
\~<\ ~\~\
\l\JU \, DEe 1 9 ZUiJ \0
- , \
- \ .- (II ...." nlt',if' L.:IOLIC:'-t
f; \ l\Tt. )~.~!;~).-\r\~i~\J r- '- 1\.)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Mr. Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988, M-20
Santa Ana, California 92702
C\.elil'i"
11-- \ \-0,
\ o.~e.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENEVA COMMONS,
MACARTHUR PLACE, CITY OF SANTA ANA, STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER
2003111068
Dear Mr. Bott:
Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the above-referenced project, a
mixed-use development primarily consisting of two residential towers (278 multiple-family dwelling
units). The Geneva Commons project will replace an earlier plan to construct 384,601 square
feet of commercial office area at the MacArthur Place site, located at the corner of Imperial
Promenade and MacArthur Boulevard in Santa Ana. The mitigations identified in the IS/MND
relate to traffic and compliance with requirements of the Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission.
There is widespread experience that urban development activity impacts water quality. This
development has the potential to substant'ially impact water quality and associated beneficial
uses, that is, water quality standards, in this area. To lessen impacts to water quality standards
and protect beneficial uses, the following comments need to be considered for this project.
1. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of
wastes to surface waters, or Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of
wastes to land, is required by the California Water Code. In the past, dewatering
activities at MacArthur Place were initially covered under Order No. 98-67, the Santa
Ana Regional Board's general de minim us permit for insignificant threat discharges.
The discovery of slugs of hydrocarbon contamination in the soil and groundwater
necessitated revision of the discharger's monitoring program, and treatment program to
coverage under the Board's general groundwater cleanup permit, Order No. 96-18.
Such residual contamination is known to exist at sites in the immediate vicinity of the
project. If further construction dewatering activities are expected to occur within the
scope of the Geneva Commons project, including discharges of wastewater to a storm
drain, the applicant must submit a Notice of Intent for appropriate NPDES permit
coverage, along with an analytical characterization of the site's groundwater, to the
Board. For information, please contact Susan Beeson at (909) 782-4902 and review
Order Nos. R8-2002-0007 and R8-2003-0061 under the Adopted Orders link at the
Region 8 website (www.swrcb.ca.qov/rwqcb8).
2. As a result of the proposed construction activity occurring in an area over five acres, a
General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be obtained by the
California Environmental Protection Agency
C~5C:a1e52
Mr. Dan Bott
-2-
December 15, 2003
project proponent. A Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of
the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to the
initiation of construction activity at the site. For information, please contact Mark Smythe
at (909) 782-4998 and review the Construction Activity General Permit and Fact Sheet
on the SWRCB website (www.swrcb.ca.Qov).
3. Post-development storm water runoff flow rates (Q) must not substantially differ from the
pre-development Q. Changes in Q, either in a positive or negative manner, can lead to
erosion on site or sedimentation impacts downstream from the project site.
4. We strongly encourage the use of pervious materials for runoff channels and parking
areas to retain absorption and allow more percolation of storm water into the ground
within the site. Porous pavements should be considered for use in parking areas of the
project as an alternative to standard impervious pavement. We encourage porous
pavement systems that contain an underlying stone reservoir to temporarily store
surface runoff and allow it to infiltrate into the subsoil.
5. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be developed and implemented to
control the discharge of pollutants both during construction and for the life of the project.
Construction BMPs must address, among other things, tracking and blowing of soil
materials and construction debris into streets and natural and man-made water
conveyances. Post-construction BMPs must address all pollutant loads carried by dry
weather runoff and first flush storm water runoff from the entire project.
6. No waste material may be di~charged to any drainage areas, channels, streambeds, or
streams. Spoil sites must not be located within any streams or areas where spoil
material could be washed into a waterbody. BMPs must be deployed around spoils at
all times. No waste material may be discharged to any stormdrains or other tributaries
to the nearby Santa Ana River. Spoil sites must not be located where spoil material
could be washed into a stormdrain. For more information on the construction of the
Best Management Practices (BMPs) mentioned above, please review the EPA website
www.epa.qov/npdes/menuofbmps/post.htm .
7. This project should be designed and constructed to protect, and if possible, improve the
quality of underlying groundwater. Incorporating the principles and policies mentioned
above will help protect the groundwater subbasin.
If you have any questions, contact Glenn Robertson at (909) 782-3259, or me at (909) 782-3234.
Sincerely,
lNv\Qi c. Cc:t.L
Mark G. Adelson, Chief
Regional Planning Programs Section
cc: Scott Morgan - State Clearinghouse
Q:Planning/Groberts/Letters/CEQAlNegDec-City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons
California Environmental Protection Agency
c~e:fe53
Comment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Comment Letter
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
December 19, 2003
Response
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project
includes mitigation requiring the applicant to receive approval of a
NPDES Permit for onsite dewatering activities and the discharge of
groundwater effluent into the local storm water system.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project
includes mitigation requiring the applicant to show proof of coverage
under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.
The preliminary hydrology report prepared for the proposed project
identifies that the project would increase the surface water flows from the
project site by 6.39 CFS. The project site is situated within a developed
office center with existing drainage facilities. According to the City's
Public Works Department, the existing drainage facilities would be able to
accommodate increased surface water runoff from the project site.
Comment Noted.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project
includes mitigation requiring the applicant to prepare a NPDES post-
construction storm water management plan per the Orange County
Drainage Area Management Plan that includes all structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices.
See above response.
As mentioned above the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the
proposed project includes mitigation requiring the applicant to receive
approval of a NPDES Permit for on site dewatering activities and the
discharge of groundwater effluent into the local storm water system.
75C-154
Comment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Comment Letter
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
December 19, 2003
Response
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project
includes mitigation requiring the applicant to receive approval of a
NPDES Permit for onsite dewatering activities and the discharge of
groundwater effluent into the local storm water system.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project
includes mitigation requiring the applicant to show proof of coverage
under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.
The preliminary hydrology report prepared for the proposed project
identifies that the project would increase the surface water flows from the
project site by 6.39 CFS. The project site is situated within a developed
office center with existing drainage facilities. According to the City's
Public Works Department, the existing drainage facilities would be able to
accommodate increased surface water runoff from the project site.
Comment Noted.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project
includes mitigation requiring the applicant to prepare a NPDES post-
construction storm water management plan per the Orange County
Drainage Area Management Plan that includes all structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices.
See above response.
As mentioned above the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the
proposed project includes mitigation requiring the applicant to receive
approval of a NPDES Permit for onsite dewatering activities and the
discharge of groundwater effluent into the local storm water system.
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3mM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
EXHIBIT 21
pfJ5e-155
/0-0
California Regional Water Quality Control Hoard
Santa Ana Region
Terry Tamminen
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
December 15, 2003
3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348
(909) 782-4130 . Fax (909) 781-6288
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8
\a)~@rnw~~
\ill D EC 1 9 2003 ,~
Arnold Schwanenegger
Governor
C\eCA.'l'
\t- \ \-0,
\ o.-\~
Mr. Dan Bott, Environmental Coordinator
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988, M-20
Santa Ana, California 92702
81 f;JE Cl.EARJNG HOUSE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENEVA COMMONS,
MACARTHUR PLACE, CITY OF SANTA ANA, STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER
2003111068
Dear Mr. Bott:
Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the above-referenced project, a
mixed-use development primarily consisting of two residential towers (278 multiple-family dwelling
units). The Geneva Commons project will replace an earlier plan to construct 384,601 square
f~et of commercial office area at the MacArthur Place site, located at the corner of Imperial
Promenade and MacArthur Boulevard in Santa Ana. The mitigations identified in the IS/MND
relate to traffic and compliance with requirements of the Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission.
There is widespread experience that urban development activity impacts water quality. This
development has the potential to substantially impact water quality and associated beneficial
uses, that is, water quality standards, in this area. To lessen impacts to water quality standards
and protect beneficial uses, the following comments need to be considered for this project.
1. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of
wastes to surface waters, or Waste Discharge Requirements for any discharge of
wastes to land, is required by the California Water Code. In the past, dewatering
activities at MacArthur Place were initially covered under Order No. 98-67, the Santa
Ana Regional Board's general de minim us permit for insignificant thre(3t discharges.
The discovery of slugs of hydrocarbon contamination in the soil and groundwater
necessitated revision of the discharger's monitoring program, and treatment' program to I
coverage under the Board's general groundwater cleanup permit, Order No. 96-18.
Such residual contamination is known to exist at sites in the immediate vicinity of the
project. If further construction dewatering activities are expected to occur within the
scope of the Geneva Commons project, including discharges of wastewater to a storm
drain, the applicant must submit a Notice of Intent for appropriate NPDES permit
coverage, along with an analytical characterization of the site's groundwater, to the
Board. For information, please contact Susan Beeson at (909) 782-4902 and review
Order Nos. R8-2002-0007 and R8-2003-0061 under the Adopted Orders link at the
Region 8 website (www.swrcb.ca.Qov/rwQcb8). : ,
2. As a result of the proposed construction activity occurring in an area over five acres, a
General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be obtained by the 2-
Califomia Environmental Protection Agency
a Recycled Paper
75€qL~ 56
,-
Mr. Dan Batt
-2-
December 15,2003
project proponent. A Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees for coverage of
the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit must be /j
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board at least 30-days prior to the' i/'
initiation of construction activity at the site. For information, please contact Mark Smythe
at (909) 782-4998 and review the Construction Activity General Permit and Fact Sheet
on the SWRCB website (www.swrcb.ca.qov). -
3.
3
4.
4
5.
Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) must be developed and implemented to .
control the discharge of pollutants both during co'nstruction and for the life of the project.. 3
Construction BMPs. must address, among other things, tracking and blowing of soil
materials and construction debris into streets and natural and man-'made water
conveyances. Post-construction BMPs must address all pollutant loads carried bY dry _
weather runoff and first flush storm water runoff from the entire project.
6.
No waste material may be di~charged to any drainage areas, channels, streambeds, or
streams. Spoil sites must not be located within any streams or areas where spoil 6
material could be washed into a waterbody. BMPs must be deployed around spoils at
all times. No waste material may be discharged to any stormdrains or other tributaries
to the nearby Santa Ana River. Spoil sites must not be located where spoil material
could be washed into a stormdrain. For more information on the construction of the
- Best Management Practices (BMPs) mentioned above, please 'review the EPA website
www.eoa.Qov/npdes/menuofbmos/oost.htm.
7.
This project should be designed and constructed to protect. and if possible, improve the 7
quality of underlying groundwater. Incorporating the principles and policies mentioned
above will help protect the groundwater subbasin.
If you have any questions, contact Glenn Robertson at (909) 782-3259, or me at (909) 782-3234.
Sincerely,
lNv\Qi Q.OdJL
Mark G. Adelson, Chief
Regional Planning Programs Section
cc: Scott Morgan - State Clearinghouse
O:Planning/Groberts/Letters/CEOAlNegDec-City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons
California Environmental Protection Agency
a Recycled Paper
~iGo@157
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue. Costa Mesa, California 92626. 949.252,5170 fax: 949.252,6012
MI~lJTES OF MEETING
December 18, 2003
PLACE:
John Wayne AiIport Administration Building
Airport Commission Hearing Room
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
TIME:
Regular me'efmg calfedto orqer at 4:00 p.m. by Chainnan Bresnahan
, "
COMMISSIO~"ERS PRESENT:
Herman BeverblU'g, Gerald Bresnahan, Patty Campbell~ Denny Ranis,
Tom O'Malley, Rod Propst, and Don Webb,
(Conunissioners Absent: None)
(Alternate COlplD.issioner Present:,. S. Beverburg) ,
I " ~ 1 '.'
1 " I,
.,' .~. . :"... .' ! I,
STAFF PRESENT: Joan Golding, Executive Officer
Alfred Brady, 'Staff' Analysf '"
"" Su,e Tanner, Secretary ,'; ", -''' :,.., : '..-., :: - " .-
II I
PLEDGE: Commi~sio~er Campbelll~d all pre~ent in the Pledg~ of Allegiance . ,I
I,
.,
; ,
"I I
APPROVAL OF MINU'rES: ,', " , " '
. ~.. ,-; ,. - . -. , . .-. .. --,.
On the motion and second ofCommis$iotIers Webb 'and Propst, wit~, Corpinissioners Campbell and O'Malley
abstaining, the minutes of the N.ovember'20, 2003 meeting,\Vere ~pp~ved aswptt,en.
~'EW BUSINESS:
2. City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone ChaJU!e (JW A AELUP):
Executive Officer Golding introduced Staff Analyst Brady who presented the staff report on this
proposal to develop a mixed-use complex featuring two residential condominiwn towers of 18 and 8
stories atop a 3-1evel parking structure. He noted some minor discrepancies in the refer.rallerters and
attaclunents. explaining the clarifications about the total number of dwelling units and the overall height
of the project that had been provided by the city's plarmer and by the architect, respectively, He added
that the Fire Code~required emergency-only roof top helipad is exempt from the Caltrans/DOA permit
process and consequently from ALUC review; while citing the project's distance fl:om JW A RUllway
19R, from the extended 19R centerline, and the project's maximum heights above ground and sea level.
L/Z"d
Lv8'Ot--J
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04~;.f. f8>A 04-5
lClOddIti
(,ldS1 :1
S00Z . Z2 . Clljl-<!
Page 2
December 18, 2003
Mr. Brady next identified aircraft noise and airspace safety as the potential AELUP issues. Referring to
graphic depictions, he described the JW A noise footprint easterly of the proj ect and the actual radar
tracks of anivals to Rl.U1way 19R for the 24-hour period of November 1, 2003. He noted that JW A
operations data show about 102,000 annual arrivals to 19R primarily by jet/turboprop aircraft, adding
that staffhas updated the rw A Airspace Map with the project site and the adjacent high-rise office
building.
lv1r. Brady next cited the cautionary statement about aircraft noise in the FAA's Detennination of No
Hazard for the project, and he explained that the IS-story residential tower will rise from a 3-level
parking structure, thus accounting for the unprecedented physical height at that location. He opined that
the combination of height and residential use serves to make this project unique and some portion of
future residents will be annoyed by aircraft noise.
Mr. Brady next reviewed in detail the FAA's Determination, and his follow-up disoussions with FAA
staff. He expla.ined the FAA requirement for subsequent filing by the sponsor, with the FAA to use the
finished ptoject data for future airspace analyses and chart publishing. Mr. Brady described the FAA's
circular search, within a 2-mile radius. that identified 358 prior aeronautical studies with a two page
listing of structures at 1east 2501 in height.
He noted the FAA finding that the proj ect will penetrate the JW A Horizontal Surface by 81', but will
not impact allY current or planned aircraft procedures. He stated that staff does not know whether the
numerous structures compiled by FAA are in the approach area or are off to the sides of JW A, and he
pointed out the AELUP's recognition of the FAA's expertise and authority on airspace and the
requirement for rooftop obstruction Hghting as mitigation by both the FAA and the AELUP.
Mr. Brady concluded that the project is technica.lly consistent with the AELUP while beillg less than a
desirable use so close to the IVV A approach, and he recommended a Finding of Consistency for the
project with conditions requirin,g fillI FAA compliance and Notice of Airport in Vicinity to all future
occupants per AELUP Section 3.3.6.
He added a brief description of his conversations with FAA staff, his results from searching the FAA's
obstruction evaluation Website database, and he noted the presence of the project sponsors and the
City's planner who could address questions.
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, Mr. Brady explained that Htechnically consistent" is meant to
convey the situation where the project is physically extremely high and close to JW A and is a
residential use. However, the project is not within the JW A noise footprint and although it penetrates
the Horizontal Surface, so do many other buildings to the east and west of the airport,
Again replying to the Commissioner, Mr. Brady explained his having learned that "ctitical to flight
safety" means that FAA insists on subsequent filing of the btlilding's final, as-built height and location
data, which will be added to their airspace database for inclusion in future aeronautical studies and
possible depiction on future aeronautical charts. He added that staff does not l<:now how much closer
the project could get without becoming a hazard to air navigation.
Commissioner H. Beverburg observed that FAA rarely issues Hazard Detemlinations, but rather will
gather such information until a dangerous point is reached when the thresholds must be moved and the
minimums raised.
-,,/S . d
L!78 . at..J
7 5eI;1I~~~ 3SIl aNtfl lCJO&IItJ
WdpT:T S002'22.~tJW
ALUC Minutes
Page 3
December 18, 2003
Mr. Brady related his conversation with the FAA manager, who signed the Determination and who
stated that had an impaot on JW A been found, FAA would have asked the developer to lower the
building, before issuing any decision. He described in detail his prior experience with the F A...t\ and the
tallest office building ill Towne Center, Costa Mesa, during the mid-1980s when the FAA and the
developer negotiated and reached a compromise on the structure's design to a maximum height above
ground, thereby avoiding a Hazard Determination. The FAA did modify a seldom used aircraft
procedure, while announcing it would not do so again.
Replyillg to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Brady explained that JW A does not own the airspace, under the
1964 Irvine Company avigation easement purchase. above the project site; and he confirmed that
commercial jetliners are the primary users of Runway 19R.
Commissioner Propst described a typical ILS approach to Runway 19R, asking about the project's
proximity to an acceptable flight envelope for that procedure and for a missed-approach with a go~
around.
Mr. Brady cited the FAA's figures that the project is about.6 mile perpendicular from a point on the
extended centetline, 6,200' outward from the end of 19R.
Commissioner Propst likened the projeot to the parking structure beneath the approach to Lindbergh
Field, noting that although apparently teclmically consistent, the project is in a bad location. .
Mr. Brady referred him to the specific project site shown on the radar track graphic.
Commissioner Campbell stated her concern with the altitudes of arriving aircraft and the project's
height, asking whether there are similar high-rise residential buildings this close to the runway.
Mr. Brady repeated that the combination oflocation, height and use make this an unprecedented project,
although he knows of similar projects being proposed nearby.
Commissioner Campbell stated her strong concerns with the project's proximity to JW A. She noted
from the radar graphic that aircraft will over-fly the site on approach to 19R, while observing that the
loss of El Toro airspace will put more demand on JW A. She added that aircraft are not as
maneuverable as some may think, especially during windy conditions, and putting people under the
approach does not protect them or the airport.
Mr. Brady confinned that the ALUC has reviewed munerous low-riSe residential projects near JW A
during the year, the current project being different from those.
Commissioner Webb queried whether there is any ALUC policy or basis to deny the project?
Cha.irman Bresnahan noted that the ALOC has responsibility to interpret the facts, including the facts
pertaining to various Commissioners' concernsl such as noise impact on residents in a high-rise and the
possible effect on the navigable airspace. He conctul'ed that previous ALUC reviews covered projects
to the sides of the airport, whereas the current proj ect is U1uque in being the first one near the approach
corridor. He repeated that the ALUC has the ability to find the project Inconsistent if such a finding is
based on facts.
~/t' . d
Lt'8'ON
~~OISSIWJ,.jOJ 3sn ar.-H:I, J.dO&JH::l
75C-160
I,Jdt'T : T S002 . 22 . dtl[A!
Page 4
December 18, 2003
Executive Officer Golding stated that the JW A noise expert considers grOlU1d level noise to be higher
due to reflection, and she assured Commissioner Webb that staff would reconullend Inconsistency if the
project had not met the ABLUP's "technical" requirements. She noted the ALUe's experience during
the 1980s with the Hutton Center development interfering with the FAA's VOR navaid at]W A. She
acknowledged the members' recently expressed interest in the topic, especially cell phone proliferation
and she suggested thnt more infonnation can be sought from FAA regarding the current project.
Commissioner Propst described nonna! and Santa Ana Willds operations at JW A, expressing his
concern with aircraft executing a Runway OIL Missed Approach toward the project site, including the
aircraft noise that will be generated. He described his experience of such events when living in 'Tustin,
stated his doubts ,vith FAA's answer on this issue, and repeated his view that the project is a bad
location for residential.
Commissioner O'Malley asked that the ALUC get comments on these issues from a professional
organization such as ALP A.
The Chairman replied to Commissioner H. Beverburg that the ALUC is engaged in figuring out its legal
options regarding a decision.
Executive Officer Golding atld Staff Analyst Brady explained that, in this case, the FAA did not
circulate the 7460 Notice to professionally-interested parties such as JW A, since '(the proposal is in an
area. of structures of similar height." Mr. Brady described the areas in Costa Mesa. Irvine, and Newport
Beach where similar buildings exist and the distances to them from the project site.
Commissioner Webb asked to hear from the applicant or the City's staff as to why this project is
desirable for future residents.
Mr. Franco Mola, project developer, described his lengthy experience locally and the changes that the
County and City are undergOing. He reviewed the projecfs history, beginning as a large high-rise
commercial development of nearly four million square feet around 1987. He noted the numerous high-
rise buildings that are closer to the freeway, including Hutton Center, and recited the extensive CEQA
work required by the City for his project. He assured the members that adequate physical sound
attenuation will be provided even though the proj eot is not in the JW A noise footprint. He reported that
the site was entitled for a large office building of a similar height around 1988. He noted the project
architect's presence to address questions, and asked the members to consider the overall development of
the area, stressing that he is not proposing to add a potential catastrophe, and offered to ans\ver any
questions,
Commissioner Campbell questioned Mr. Mola about reported construction problems with certain of his
residentia.l and commercial projects in Seal Beach and Huntington Beach. She related critical testimony
on physical problems with buildings and described the emotional atld [mancial impacts on those
residents. Commissioner Campbell said that based on her previous experience with. the developer's
projects, she could not support this project.
Nil. Mola stated that he is unaware of problems with the bank building named by the Commissioner, nor
that he knows where she obtained her information, stressing that he is present to discuss the current
proj ect on the Agenda.
2/S'd
L178'OH
t'KIISSIW~'JO:::) 3sn m~tfl .lCJOdCJltI
75C-161
~'.JdS 1 : 1 S002 . 22 . CJtJt.-1
Page 5
December 18, 2003
Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Mola confirmed that the project will be condominiums.
A discussion ensued among Commissioner Propst, Alternate Commissioner S. Beverburg and Mr. Mola
regarding the planned emergency-only t1Se of the roof-top helipad and options for future usage, and the
complex function of noise generated aloft with a slant range to the site, and higher noise generated on
the ground level freeway adjacent to the site affecting the residents, depending on elevation.
Mr. Vince Fregoso, City of Santa Ana senior planner, replied to C011l.missioner Propst that the project
has not been to the City's Planning Commission yet, with a fonnal recommendation to the Council
some months away, so he cannot speculate on their views about the project or on overriding the ALUC.
Mr. Ernie Vasquez, Project Architect, described his liaison with the Planning Conunission and City
COW1cil, and their enthusiasm for such a mixed-use high-rise project representing quality housing for
Santa Ana, He related his finn's research in other west coast cities, noting that this trend is occurring in
Orange County such as in lrvine at the Fluor complex. He said that the cost ofland locally is a factor,
and assured the members that the project site is further from the approach corridor than several existing
buildings. He encouraged an exhibit to show all buildings in the context of the flight path, and assured
the members that the City, the ALUC and the developer can work together to a solution,
Commissioner Webb moved the staff recommendation for a finding of Consistency with conditions,
while noting the lack of binding reasons, including noise, to deny the project.
Alternate Conunissioner S. Beverburg reviewed the complex noise environment, repeating his desire to
see some level of sowld attenuation.
Chainnan Bresnahan, hearing no second, replied to Commissioner Webb by describing his lingering
concerns including the precedent-setting nature of the project, the claim that such building heights were
entitled in the 1980s with ALUC approval, proximity to the approach corridor, the true aspects of the
noise issue, and past experience with projects affecting JW A despite FAA's expertise. He noted that
the issue is not high-rise development per S0, but rather its location in a sensitive area. He stated his
desire for continued deliberations at the next meeting with additional infonnation, such as was offered
by the architect regarding the general vicinity, to ensure an infonned ALUC decision.
A discussion ensued among Commissioners, staff, the City, and the project proponent, regarding the
specific issues on which the members desire more infonnation, including actual noise environment,
helipad requirements, relationship to aircraft traffic and navaids) views of the FAA and ALP A, and
statutory time pennitted for a continuance.
On the motion and second of Commissioners Campbell and Propst, this item was continued to the next
scheduled meeting of January 15, 2004, pending presentation of additional information by staff.
ONGOING BUSINESS:
2. A~ministrative Status ReDort:
Executive Officer Golding reminded the members that the ALUC roster with phone numbers is
confidential and not meant to be given out. She noted that it may be necessary to schedule the January
meeting at 4:30 p.m., of which she will notify the Members bye-mail. She concluded by noting the
l../9'd
2,(78'0[-..1
7 5~Cs~162 3sn mIen IdOddIti
WdST:T S002'22'd~W
Page 6
December 18, 2003
sample language, in this item's packet, regarding suggested language for certain local agencies to assure
consistency vis a vis heliports and very tall building projects.
Replying to the Chairman, Ms. Golding agreed to research the law requiring emergellcy helipads on
high-rise building for the members future consideration of the Heliport AELUP,
Vice-Cl1ainnan Propst expressed his thanks to Alternate-Commissioner Kranser for providing the two
news articles in the packet, stating his view that the LA Times article was well balanced. He added his
pleasant surprise that Mr. Krauser views the majority as smart and understanding ofllie ALUC's
missionl while noting the claim that the ALUC is spending the public's money while not serving the
public's interest.
Chairman Bresnahan infonned the members that the Vice-Chainnan will have to conduct the May 20,
2004 meeting.
3. Proceedines with Consistent A~encies:
Ms. Golding reported no changes.
4. Proceedings with Inconsistent A2encj~:
Ms. Golding reported no changes.
5. Items ofInterest to the Public:
No one from the public wished to address the Commission,
Commissioner Hams asked to direct staff to review the El Toro AELUP and remove all aircraft noise
contours to reflect existing conditions. He cited Secretary Amy's letter as owner of the property, stating
that this step should be taken which the ALUC could review in January.
Commission O'Malley concurted with the suggestion for a January review.
A discussion ensued among Commissioners and staff regarding Brown Act restrictions on non-
agendized actions and whether this item should again be discussed with no action being taken to
agendize the item.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5: 18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~<;3~
Joan S. Golding
Executive Officer
UL'd
Lt'8' ot-..J
7gcS~tl63sn at-..Jtn lCJOddltf
1-<1.::1'3 T : T S002 . 22 . dtf~.l
ml
ORAN~U~
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR
ORANGE
COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue · Costa Mesa, California 92626 · 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
MINUTES OF MEETING
January 15, 2004
PLACE: John Wayne Airport Administration Building
Airport Commission Hearing Room
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
TIME: Regular meeting called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Bresnahan
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Herman Beverburg, Gerald Bresnahan, Patty Campbell, Denny
Harris, Leonard Kranser, Rod Propst, and Don Webb
(Commissioner Absent: O'Malley)
(Alternate Commissioner Present: S. Beverburg)
STAFF PRESENT: Joan Golding, Executive Officer
Alfred Brady, Staff Analyst
Sue Tanner, Secretary
PLEDGE:
Commissioner Campbell led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A discussion ensued at the behest of Commissioner Harris regarding the accuracy of Item 5, which related
to the suggestion that the EI Toro AELUP be agendized for the January meeting. He asked how items get
agendized, noted that the request had been for discussion of an issue, and he denied the implication that the
Brown Act would have been violated, as no action was being proposed. However, following the
discussion, no change to the minutes were requested.
On the motion and second of Commissioners Propst and Webb, with Commissioner Kranser abstaining, the
minutes of the December 18, 2003 meeting were approved as written.
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04J~~~ZPA 04-5
ALUC Minutes
Page 2
January 15, 2004
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
2. City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone Chanee (JW A AELUP) Gtem
continued from December 18,2003):
Executive Officer Golding explained that no replies have been received to the letters sent to ALP A
and the FAA, although a verbal contact with the FAA's 7460 specialist revealed that the project is
60S' outside ofthe "flight envelope" for instrument approaches to JW A Runway 19R, per the
question asked by Commissioner Propst. Ms. Golding next introduced the JW A noise consultant,
Mr. Vince Mestre, who presented a noise tutorial at the Commission's request, including the issues
of noise impacts at ground level vs. atop high-rise buildings and the effect of proximity to aircraft.
Mr. Vince Mestre, of Mestre-Greve Associates, the contract acoustical consultant for JW A,
identified the buildings site at MacArthur Place in relation to the AELUP noise contours from the
1985 JW A Master Plan, as well as its distance to aircraft arriving on straight-in and turning
approaches to Runway 19R. He next described the slant ranges from the ground and from the top of
a 250' proposed building perpendicular to an aircraft on a 30 final approach, and he explained the
physics of sound decreasing with distance from the source, such that noise would be .5 dB louder
atop the building. However, as described below, he noted that there are numerous other factors
which contribute to the actual real world result. When all factors are considered, the noise from a
source at a sideline slant range to a site results in a higher noise level at the ground level of the
building.
Replying to Commissioners Webb and H. Beverburg, Mr. Mestre noted that the human ear detects a
difference of about 3 dB, such that the difference just described is not detectable, adding that other
factors affect sound propagation such as ground reflection and bending by temperature inversion and
by wind and temperature gradients. He added that empirical data from actual measurements answer
such questions.
Mr. Mestre described the reflective qualities of various hard and soft landscape surfaces, noting that
research is ongoing into sideline sound propagation as pertains to the FAA's Integrated Noise Model,
adding that these issues complicate the correlating of noise model results with actual measurements
that are undertaken by airports and aircraft manufacturers. He related the various factors that affect
the lateral attenuation and spreading effect vis a vis the ground reflection of noise such as distance,
angle to the aircraft, and aircraft size and type, including tail-mounted vs. wing-mounted engines.
Mr. Mestre described the results of calculations for an observer at ground level and on the roof of a
250' building, perceiving noise along the slant distances to commercial aircraft arriving straight in to
Runway 19R, and his conclusion that it will be noisier on the ground due to the diverse factors
affecting sound propagation. He next described the situation of General Aircraft (GA) arriving to
19R by flying directly over the building, in which case it would be noisier at the roof than on the
ground. The differences for the examples being 3.5 to 4.5 dB respectively, although he opined that
actual measurements would likely be less than the model's calculations.
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, regarding such GA operations above the site, Mr. Mestre
confirmed that his calculations were all based on A-weighted decibels, to reflect the range of human
hearing, and he related the results for various models of GA aircraft affecting a ground level
observer. He added that a top-floor observer would, in such examples, likely hear 3 dB more, after
describing and comparing the various noise levels to human conversation levels.
75C-165
ALUC Minutes
Page 3
January 15, 2004
Replying to Commissioner Webb, Mr. Mestre confirmed that his various calculations were single-
event maximum noise levels, while referring to the locations of the CNEL contours shown in the
JW A AELUP. He pointed out the GA noise portion of the JW A CNEL footprint and the types of
operations responsible for it. He noted that with 75 dB outside of a closed building, current energy
and insulation code requirements provide 25-28 dB of attenuation, so that interior single event levels
for noisy airplanes would be around 50 dBA, adding that numerous events at 50 dB would be needed
to reach the interior standard of 45 dB CNEL, making it easy to design a building accordingly.
Replying to Commissioners Bresnahan and Propst, Mr. Mestre related single event noise levels to
CNEL, for various examples of GA aircraft above the site and commercial aircraft to the east, and he
described the resulting interior noise in terms of human perception. He added that the AELUP's
CNEL contours are based on the 1985 JW A Master Plan, with the actual current measured noise
footprint being smaller since quieter aircraft have entered the fleet mix.
Replying to Commissioner Harris, Mr. Mestre explained that the EIR for increased JW A operations
included a corresponding set of contours, adding that they are still smaller than the 1985 Master
Plan's. He noted that, under the Access Plan rules, the airlines could shift to MD 80s and 767s for
the approved flight limits and result in similar contours that the ALUC and the County has adopted
for planning purposes.
Replying to Chairman Bresnahan, Mr. Mestre explained that noise complaint studies do not correlate
with actual noise levels, but rather with the ambient levels of different areas around an airport. He
added that the loudest 10% of flights account for the complaints, which occur in areas of varying
ambient noise, not necessarily in areas of high single event levels, but rather in areas where flights
stand out above the background levels.
Again replying to the Chairman, Mr. Mestre said that everything is different where helicopter noise
is concerned, it being a low-frequency, highly intrusive and little attenuated type of sound.
Replying to Commissioner Kranser, Mr. Mestre described Alternative G covered in EIR 573, which
proposed extending JW A Runway 19L to the south to support commercial airline flights.
Commissioner Kranser noted that Alternative G was a 24 MAP concept, although he is not
advocating it, but is merely curious as to its possible effects on the project site.
Mr. Mestre recalled that they were bigger contours, although he would have to look it up to see if the
60/65 contours would have reached the site.
Replying to Executive Officer Golding, Mr. Mestre described the perception of aircraft noise to
people in the foothill areas north of JW A. He explained that the decreased distance to overhead
aircraft amounts to an increase of 1 to 1.5 dB, which is not perceptible. He opined that the low
ambient levels not the hilly terrain, account for increased annoyance, and he pointed out that
experiments can show that the level of background noise is directly related to human perception. He
added that the phenomena of fog seeming to increase noise is actually due to the decline of
background noise caused by slower surface traffic, hence aircraft seem to sound louder.
The Chair thanked Mr. Mestre for his presentation.
75C-166
ALUC Minutes
Page 4
January 15,2004
Executive Officer Golding summarized the inquiries made with FAA and ALP A since the previous
meeting, but without any formal replies from either. She explained that JW A staff had pursued
contact with FAA since the project's 7460 Notice had not been circulated for comments, with the
appeal period consequently passing without any objections. She added that JW A staffhad succeeded
in getting FAA to recheck the project's determination findings, and that both JW A and ALUC staff
hope to receive circulated Notices during FAA's study process in the future, rather than after the fact
from cities and project proponents. She introduced Staff Analyst Brady, who presented the
Supplemental Staff Report.
Mr. Brady briefly recalled the ALUC deliberations at the previous meeting and went through the
subsequent research on the project, noting the correspondence sent to FAA and to ALP A, and the
previous development history of the locale as found in the available ALUC files.
Referring to a large air photo of the area, Mr. Brady showed the relative locations of the project site,
the JW A runway complex, and other nearby areas of high-rise buildings in Costa Mesa and Irvine.
He next addressed questions previously raised by Commissioners Propst and H. Beverburg, having
discussed these and related questions with the FAA Regional Office staff. He related FAA's
explanation that their analysis found the project to be close to their evaluation parameters, however,
the building will not be a hazard but rather will be an obstruction thereby requiring proper lighting.
He noted FAA's calculation that the project will be 605' outside of the flight envelope for instrument
approaches to 19R along the extended runway centerline. He repeated that the FAA's phrase
"critical to flight safety" refers to their requirement that the developer file a subsequent form
showing the building's final specs, for the FAA to enter into their database for inclusion in future
aeronautical studies, air traffic designs, and aeronautical chart editions. He added FAA's calculation
that during a Runway OIL missed approach operation, under Santa Ana winds conditions when
visibility would be excellent, an aircraft would pass over the general area of the project site at 600',
Mr. Brady returned to the staff report, explaining that the additional information acquired did not
provide staff with a basis for altering their previous conclusion and recommendation. He added that
in obtaining and considering broader information, an alternative recommendation has been included
to allow the ALUC to take other action as it deems appropriate based on additional information
received up to, and at, today'smeeting. Mr. Brady concluded by noting the presence of the project
sponsor and his consultants in the audience who may want to address the Commission.
Replying to Commissioner Kranser, Mr. Brady explained the address on the ALP A website used to
send the ALUC letter, although he did not know of any follow-up attempt.
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, Mr. Brady related the FAA's explanation that had their
analysis been leading to a "determination of hazard" for the project, the FAA would have contacted
the developer directly to ask that the building be lowered. He noted that the FAA would decide on a
hazard determination ifthe building were 605' closer to the centerline and actually intruding into the
aircraft operating airspace, with or without a cell phone tower atop the building.
Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Brady explained that since the FAA appears not to circulate
every notice any more, the current and previous high-rise projects in Santa Ana were the first
occasions of his seeing the term "critical to flight safety."
Commissioner Webb stated that he has not heard any information on which to deny the project, and
that he wises to move staff s first recommendation.
75C-167
ALUC Minutes
Page 5
January 15,2004
Chairman Bresnahan suggested that the members hear testimony from the project sponsors.
Mr. Franco Mola, Geneva Commons developer, thanked the ALUC for having Mr. Mestre's
presentation, noting that his noise consultant is also present.
Chairman Bresnahan asked the noise experts to estimate the level of aircraft that had just departed
JW A, adjacent to the meeting room. The sponsor's noise consultant indicated a single event of 65-
70 dB. The Chairman observed that is much noisier than Mr. Mola expects in his building.
Mr. Mola confirmed the requirement to design to 45 CNEL interior, adding that the EIR covered that
and the building will be tested for compliance. He stressed that the project complies with setbacks
and noise studies, and asked for a favorable finding.
No one else from the audience wanting to speak, the Chairman asked for a second to the motion and
discussion by the members. There was no second for the motion.
During the ensuing discussion among the Commissioners, Mr. Brady confirmed that with the
elapsing of 60 days, the project would be deemed Consistent by law. He noted a few instances when
projects were withdrawn and later re-submitted by local agencies in order to avoid violating the 60
day limit, as well as an ALUC finding of Inconsistency.
Commissioner Kranser explained his view that the AELUP is out of date, since the new EIR and
Settlement Agreement have allowed an increase to 85 daily departures from 73 and the passenger
count has already exceeded the old 8.4 MAP limit. He stated that the JW A AELUP needs to be
corrected, like the obsolete EI Toro AELUP, and he urged the ALUC to consider projects like the
current one under a realistic 20 year plan, recognizing that the margins of safety around JW A are
shrinking. He asked the members to consider that the true margins may be less than shown in an
obsolete AELUP, which could create danger for residents, aircraft, and the airport.
Replying to Commissioner Kranser, Executive Officer Golding reviewed the duty of the ALUC to
change the AELUP upon a referral from the airport, noting that the joint County-Newport Beach EIR
583 and new Settlement Agreement show the noise impacts within the 1985 contours, as Mr. Mestre
had stated. She confirmed that the AELUP contours serve as the planning lines for the neighboring
jurisdictions, and especially in Santa Ana Heights where FAA funds have been devoted to sound
attenuation of homes, etc. based on those noise contours. She concluded that the facts support the
current JW A AELUP as perfectly adequate.
Commissioner Propst stated his view, as a pilot, that the building is in a bad place, and voiced his
preference to let the motion die for lack of a second, and allow the 60 days to elapse, rather than
approving a residential project so close to Runway 19R.
Commissioner H. Beverburg agreed that a reasonable member would have to abstain from voting for
the project. He suggested a finding of Inconsistency on the project, so that the City could override
the ALUC and proceed with a project that he views as borderline. He noted that buildings will not
be tom down and the ALUC doesn't have too many options as the usage of JW A increases. He
agreed with Commissioner Propst that the members could abstain on a vote, thereby allowing
approval by default, but he moved to find the project Inconsistent as a better option. There was no
second for the motion.
75C-168
ALUC Minutes
Page 6
January 15, 2004
Commissioner Propst repeated his pilots' perspective that the site is a bad place for families, so high
up near the aircraft under certain flight procedures.
Commissioner Kranser explained that Commissioner O'Malley shares the same pilot's views and
had encouraged his alternate to vote against the project. He reiterated his earlier comments on the
adequacy of the current JW A AELUP in terms of reality at the airport, and stated his reluctance to
live in a building or ride in an airplane, based on having perhaps met some regulation.
Replying to Chairman Bresnahan regarding his approval schedule, Mr. Mola pointed out the ALUC
staff's conclusion that the project is technically consistent, he repeated that his noise consultant is
present to discuss interior and measured ground level noise at 2,800' from the centerline, and he
wondered what additional information could bear on the members' seeming dislike for his project.
Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Mola stated his doubt that the members' personal views of
such a residential project are within the ALUC purview, being outside the scope of the meeting. He
confirmed his interest in the issues raised, and referred to a graphic of his project among the existing
buildings in the area and in relation to the JW A runway. He noted that the smallest building closer
to the runway is about the same height as his, in terms of line of sight.
Again replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Mola described the use and occupancy of nearby
buildings, and he stressed that every effort has been made to be diligent and in compliance, such as
eliminating the proposed helicopter pad, and staying out of the FAA's envelope. He noted that a
residential project will house fewer people than an office building, and that vacant sites, such as in
Hutton Center will propose 300' building heights. He cited the FAA's concurrence, and the State
requirement for interior sound attenuation. He assured the members that he would understand if they
have well founded conditions of denial, but without those he does not see a basis for denial that
would not be emotional and capricious. He agreed that more time to seek technical information is
reasonable, but pursuing emotional information would be a waste oftime. He concluded by
acknowledging a pilot's point of view, but added that a comparable office building could house up to
four times as many people at the site.
Commissioner Propst agreed that technically the sponsor's project is Consistent, but from his
perspective of the ALUC charge to protect people as well as airports, he could not vote in favor and
would abstain instead.
Mr. Mola noted that people have bought vacant land with zoned and master planned entitlements.
He and Commissioner Propst agreed that more time for further deliberations likely would not help.
Mr. Brady pointed out that this property was being considered for a OP NZC by the City of Santa
Ana.
Mr. Mola observed that it is beneficial for the ALUC to have received the noise consultant's
technical information on the noise problem, and he repeated his willingness to help inquire into other
technical areas, although he believes that a few members have decided that they don't want any more
high-rises along the runways and flight patterns. He noted that the good development cycle now will
result in a lot of similar applicants over the next 6-7 months.
Commissioner Campbell stated her view that the site is a lousy location for such a tall building.
75C-169
ALUC Minutes
Page 7
January 15,2004
Mr. Mola and Commissioner Campbell discussed the adjacent First American Title site and its
current and planned development in terms of square feet and height, compared to the Mola project.
Replying to Chairman Bresnahan, Mr. Mola explained that the City's planner, Mr. Fregoso, has a
schedule conflict tonight and thus there is no City of Santa Ana representative at the meeting.
Chairman Bresnahan observed that the ALUC must act at this meeting, and he explained his
concerns based on his experience as an aviator and Commission member, while noting that the
Commissioner making the motion for Inconsistency is the senior member. He stated his concerns
are: Mr. Mola's project will become the tallest building in the area and previous cases had effects on
JW A; that large square footage projects are significant when they become high-rise; the cumulative
effect of projects since the FAA is an advisory not a regulatory body; the possible loss of radar
coverage for JW A; and the possibility of an aircraft hitting the building.
Mr. Mola recited the various existing building heights, and his proposed elevation in the area and he
described the developers' process of buying a site and complying with the various restrictions.
Noting again that his project is outside of the envelope, he suggested the ALUC decide on its
preferred height and buy the airspace above that.
Replying to Commissioners Harris and Propst, Mr. Mola repeated his view that the ALUC is taking
an emotional position on his building and asked for guidance such as setting a vertical limit,
informing the community, and buying the air rights to discourage developers from asking for greater
heights.
Replying to Chairman Bresnahan, Mr. Mola agreed that he has no right to build to infinity, but does
have the right to utilize the property's zoning. He noted that ALUC had not commented on the
project's EIR.
Replying to Commissioner Campbell, Staff Analyst Brady stated that the EIR had been received, but
when contacted, the City staff had stated that the project was in hiatus. Mr. Brady later corrected his
statement.
Mr. Mola stated that ifso, the ALUC had been notified of the project and repeated that the ALUC
should be able to state its recommendation and conditions, rather than just a flat "no."
A discussion ensued among Commissioners and Mr. Mola regarding height preferences and likely
development on his and adjacent sites. .
Commissioner Propst described the FAA's positions toward airports, avigation easements, and
surrounding land use development, noting that FAA funds are now being devoted to homeland
security issues. He noted the role of the City in deciding land use, and developers acting on that
local authority, and he speculated that Mr. Mola will end up with a consistent decision either by
default or by a vote at this meeting.
Commissioner Propst and Mr. Mola discussed the existing heights in the area, and what a preferred
height might be, agreeing that ALUC staff would have recommended a finding of Inconsistent if
their analysis merited it.
75C-170
ALUC Minutes
Page 8
January 15, 2004
Chairman Bresnahan noted that a comfort height would be the Part 77 Imaginary Surface at 204',
above which there would be impacts in a sensitive area. He conceded there is no specific point on
which to find the project Inconsistent, but he warned of the danger of an accident resulting in public
demands about why such a situation was allowed, just as is the case where the issue is noise.
A short discussion ensued about urban airport tragedies and ideal airport siting situations, with Mr.
Mola supporting large land purchases to prevent encroachment.
Chairman Bresnahan repeated his view that he sees no legal basis for an Inconsistency finding, but
finds it disturbing to learn that this project could be 605' closer to the centerline and still be
approved, noting that he is also tempted to abstain from a vote to approve.
Alternate Commissioner S. Beverburg discussed the details of the distance figures provided in the
staff reports, noting that the aircraft airspace exceeds the area of the noise contours, possibly being a
weakness of the AELUP that may require the future development of unique restriction zones.
Commissioners Campbell and S. Beverburg discussed the onus of public protection on the ALUC
and Commissioner Kranser' s concept of "margin of safety."
The Chairman noted that such a strategy must be aggressive in view of development trends.
Staff Analyst Brady corrected his earlier comment, now recalling that the EIR received was for the
Broadway Plaza high-rise in downtown Santa Ana, and that only a set of drawings had been received
for the Geneva Commons project from the City.
Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Brady related his search of the ALUC files, where he had found past
agenda listings for MacArthur Place, but only one 1989 staff report dealing with the 12-story
building next to Mr. Mola's site, which at 229' is the highest building elevation now in that locale.
Mr. Mola repeated his claim that the original area entitlements were for four million square feet of
office space in 20-25 story buildings.
Chairman Bresnahan stated his concern with Santa Ana being an Inconsistent Local Agency, in that
assurances are lacking for what the City may do in a sensitive area. He asked for a second to
Commissioner H. Beverburg's motion to find the project Inconsistent.
Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion.
Replying to Commissioner Webb, Commissioner H. Beverburg explained the basis of his motion as
the General Policy of the AELUP, and that the finding would provide the City the chance to study
the issues in depth while deciding whether to override the ALUC.
Chairman Bresnahan observed that the project shows why the judgment of seven Commissioners is
required to evaluate staffs recommendations as well as the public testimony. He repeated his view
that the objections to the project are too vague for him to vote Inconsistent, despite his concerns. He
noted that the closer a project gets to the limit lines, the less flexible restricted areas are. He added
his doubt that someone following the current lines, can be penalized with an Inconsistency finding.
The motion failed on a vote of2 ayes, 3 nays, and 2 abstentions.
75C-171
ALUC Minutes
Page 9
January 15,2004
Commissioner Webb moved to find the project Consistent, and stated that the ALUC should
otherwise give Mr. Mola some guidance that the area's existing 229' height is appropriate or that
some other similar height is Consistent.
A general discussion ensued among the members, staff, and Mr. Mola about the area's existing
heights, average building floor-heights, and grade elevations in terms of sea level and above ground.
The Chairman suggested the ALUC use this opportunity to add its concerns regarding proximity to
aircraft, overflights, sight and sound of localized flights, and the height so as to inform the City that
the site is a poor place for such a project.
A discussion ensued among those present regarding the elevation of JW A and its Part 77 Imaginary
Surfaces and the elevation of the nearby existing building, the current maximum being 229', as well
as Mr. Mola's proposal.
Mr. Mola suggested that the ALUC make a statement to benefit the City and other developers that
229' above sea level is the acceptable height, although he would not agree with that figure.
Another discussion ensued among the Commissioners, staff, and Mr. Mola regarding language to
augment the staff recommendation by expressing the ALUC's consensus on height and other related
outstanding concerns.
Replying to Commissioner Propst, Mr. Mola estimated that reducing his project by about 50' could
cost him five million dollars.
Chairman Bresnahan agreed with Commissioner Campbell that the modifications to the staff
recommendation are not arbitrary or capricious, the matter being well discussed at this point,
although he does not prefer findings of conditional Consistency.
On the motion and second of Commissioners Webb and Propst, staff s recommendation was adopted
as amended to include the condition that the project not exceed 229' AMSL in height and to inform
the City that, due to aircraft over-flights and their resulting effects on occupants and on airport
operations, the site is a poor location for such a building and land use, with Commissioner Campbell
voting No and with Commissioners Harris and Kranser Abstaining.
ONGOING BUSINESS:
2. Administrative Status Report:
Executive Officer Golding informed the Members that she will attend a special meeting of the City
of Irvine Planning Commission on January nnd covering the issue of expanding residential
development in the Irvine Business Complex around JW A. She expressed her concern with this
trend occurring next to the only commercial Orange County airport, and she stated her intention to
keep the ALUC informed.
Ms. Golding next informed the members that she and Staff Analyst Brady had developed a matrix
for the ongoing general plans consistency review and that they have entered the data for the cities
surrounding JW A and will continue with the cities around FMA, etc. She explained that staff will
develop suggested text and meet with the individual planning departments, while additional agencies
75C-172
ALUC Minutes
Page 10
January 15,2004
are being added to the matrix. She reminded the members that the law and the Caltrans Handbook
allows local agencies two avenues to become Consistent: adopt the specific AELUP content as
applicable, or confirm in the General Plan their intention to refer projects to ALUC and abide by the
PUC procedure. She noted that in the latter case, 10cal agencies may lack the specific information to
help developers around the local airports in conforming to restrictions, and therefore staff wants to
develop AELUP guidelines check-lists for those planning departments to better inform applicants.
3. Proceedines with Consistent Aeencies:
Ms. Golding reported no changes. Replying to Chairman Bresnahan and Commissioner Propst, Ms.
Golding explained that JW A has not prepared a new Airport Master Plan, but rather is undertaking
proceeding with planning under the Settlement Agreement agreed to by the Settling Parties and
approved by the U.S. District Court, Central District. The Chairman explained his inquiry as relating
to Commissioner Kranser's earlier comments about the JW A AELUP being outdated.
4. Proceedines with Inconsistent Aeencies:
Ms. Golding reported no changes. Chairman Bresnahan initiated a general discussion of Santa Ana
as an inconsistent local agency, coupled with the trend to very high-rise development in that City.
The Commissioners reached the consensus that staff should agendize the issues of high-rise
development in the sensitive southeast area of Santa Ana near JW A and ALUC's intent to review
projects therein, for the next meeting.
5. Items of Interest to the Public:
No one from the public wished to address the Commission.
Commissioner Harris read into the record a letter also signed by Commissioner O'Malley requesting
that the EI Toro AELUP be agendized for the February meeting for discussion and vote on directions
to staff to either: Remove the EI Toro portion of the AELUP so as to conform with the Board of
Supervisors resolution of February 25,2003 which rescinded the El Toro Airport System Master
Plan and requested "preparation ofthe Airport Land Use Plan to reflect this action", or ifnot
approved then to replace the noise elements of the El Toro AELUP with current ambient conditions
to comply with the October 9,2002 letter from the Department of the Navy to the Chairman of
ALUC. The letter states that "the Navy has no plans to re-commission that site" and the 1981 noise
study "is not applicable to the closed military facility and should not be used as a basis for any land
use planning effort undertake by the ALUC." A discussion ensued about whether any new
information is available pertaining to the El Toro issue. The Chair indicated that absent hearing
something different from a majority of the Commission the item won't be agendized.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~.~
Joan S. Goldin~- - 0
Executive Officer
75C-173
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR
ORANGE
COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue · Costa Mesa, California 92626 · 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
February 4, 2004
nECEIVED
FF.B 0 6 2004
SAt'l1'A ANA PlANNiNG OF'.
Mr. Vince Fregoso, Senior Planner
City of Santa Ana
Planning & Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone Change
Dear Mr. Fregoso:
During its Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County
resumed consideration of the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded, and carried by
the Commission to find the City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone Change to be
Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport
providing: that the project does not exceed 229' AMSL in height; and providing that the project complies fully
with all conditions required by the FAA, including those discussed in the ALUC's staff reports and in the FAA
Determination of September 23,2003, in particular as regards obstruction lighting and/or marking per the
criteria of FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 70/7460-1K; and providing that Notice of Airport in Vicinity is
provided to all future occupants as specified in JWA AELUP Section 3.3.6.
Furthermore, the Commission finds that, although the project is technically Consistent with the JWA AELUP, a
combination of factors including the proximity of aircraft overflights as well as aircraft operating procedures
and navigation systems, the resulting sight and sound of aircraft, and the proposed physical height coupled with
residential usage, make the site a poor location for such a development project.
Additionally, the Commission directed staffto prepare an agenda item for the next ALUC meeting scheduled
for February 19, 2004 for the Commission to consider applying PUC Section 21676.5 to the southeastern area
of Santa Ana in specific instances. A copy of that agenda item will be provided to you in advance.
If you have any questions regarding this proceeding, please contact me at 949-252-5170 or at
jgolding@ocair.com.
For the Commission,
~S~
Joan S. Golding
Executive Officer
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
E'lSC.PI74
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR
ORANGE
COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue. Costa Mesa, California 92626. 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
March 18, 2004
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 2005
SANTA ANA PLANNING DEP'
MINUTES OF MEETING
PLACE: John Wayne Airport Administration Building
Airport Commission Hearing Room
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92626
TIME: Regular meeting called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Bresnahan
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Herman Beverburg, Gerald Bresnahan, Patty Campbell, Denny Harris,
Tom O'Malley, Rod Propst, and Don Webb
(Commissioners Absent: None)
(Alternate Commissioners Present: S. Beverburg and L. Kranser)
STAFF PRESENT:
Joan Golding, Executive Officer
Alfred Brady, Staff Analyst
Sue Tanner, Secretary
PLEDGE:
Commissioner Campbell led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A discussion ensued at the behest of Commissioner Harris regarding the attaching of his letter to the meeting
minutes, after which staff was directed to do so.
On the motion and second of Commissioners Propst and Harris, with Commissioner O'Malley abstaining, the
minutes of the January 15,2004 meeting were approved as written, with the addition of the aforementioned letter
being attached.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. City of Santa Ana - Area of Special Airspace Concern (JW A AELUP):
Mr. Vince Fregoso, Santa Ana Senior Planner, explained that the planning division has begun working with
ALUC staff on updating the City's Airport Environs Element, with a staff meeting scheduled for tomorrow
morning. He requested a thirty day continuance to allow the respective staffs to review comments and
concur on changes that will modernize the City's document.
CUP 04-2~-:.t~1r1 04-5
SPR 04-6JfJH{Jrt-l1rt.cM 04-5
EXHIBIT E
ALUC Minutes
Page 2
March 18, 2004
Chairman Bresnahan asked for assurances that developments in the area of the ALUC's concern will
continue being submitted by the City.
Mr. Fregoso stated that the City will continue submitting projects as required by law and by FAA
requirements.
Replying to the Chairman, Executive Officer Golding confirmed the ALVC's understanding that the
Commission has been requiring the submittal of projects over forty feet in height.
Replying to the Chairman on this issue, Mr. Fregoso deferred to the City's legal representative.
Kylee Otto, Assistant City Attorney, stressed the City's desire for thirty days in which the staffs would
work jointly and report back on the progress made. She noted the action was done in 1987, doubting that
anyone thinks that things have changed since then and confirming the need to modernize the document.
Replying further to Chairman Bresnahan, Ms. Otto confirmed that projects penetrating the FAR Part 77
Imaginary Surfaces or over 200' in height will continue coming before the ALUC. She noted that the
ALUC will have the Mola project again tonight, and that the future Nexus project will also be submitted,
the ALUC already having reviewed the One Broadway project. She added the City's recognition of the
ALUC's importance, stressing that the three big projects in Santa Ana have been, or will be, seen by the
Commission, with nothing significant to occur during the coming month.
The Chairman explained the ALUC's uncertainty about the status of the City's process with those projects,
and he thanked her for commenting.
Commissioner O'Malley moved to continue the item for thirty days, and asked to communicate his
questions on the matter directly to staff.
Ms. Golding suggested email or other means to reach her, noting the first of several expected meetings
with Santa Ana's staff will be at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow.
Commissioner Propst asked if the ALUC is clear on the nature of submittals, while seconding the motion.
Chairman Bresnahan stated his pleasure at the City's desire to work with the ALUC toward Consistency,
noting the only concern as being a continuity of submittals, and asked staff if the Commission should better
define, in the motion, the ALUC's expectation about submittals.
Ms. Golding briefly commented, repeating staffs belief that the current submittal obligation is for the 40'
criterion, while noting that the Members or Counsel may have comments on modifying that vis a vis other
options.
Deputy County Counsel Jack Golden opined that under the Caltrans Handbook interpretation, the ALUC
still has the right to require that the City submit projects over 40'. He noted his discussions with one of the
City's assistant attorneys who reads the statute differently. Observing that the Handbook fills in gaps in the
statute, Mr. Golden noted that the action proposed for tonight is to apply a less stringent standard to the
City, and that he would be comfortable if the ALUC were to apply either the new or the existing criterion,
while the staffs work things out.
75C-176
ALUC Minutes
Page 3
March 18, 2004
Mr. Golden confirmed the Chairman's view that, with nothing occurring in the interim, no undue burden
will be put on the City.
Replying to Chairman Bresnahan about any amendment of his motion, Commissioner O'Malley stated his
preference for the revised language recommended by staff.
Commissioner Propst concurred with this change to the motion, as regards his seconding.
Replying to the Chairman, Executive Officer Golding read the staff recommendation prepared for this
agenda item, noting that the height criteria therein are essentially the same as those mentioned by the
Assistant City Attorney.
Responding to the Chairman, Assistant City Attorney Otto stated that the motion is agreeable in concept,
but not in the spirit of cooperation. She reviewed the recent liaison between the City's and ALUC's staffs
stressing the continuing effort scheduled for tomorrow, and noting that there is a level of frustration in
taking this motion for 30 days, although structurally it does not change things.
Chairman Bresnahan clarified that the motion softens the requirement, since the ALUC is operating under
the belief that the 40' submittal criterion invoked by the ALUC in 1987 is still in effect, making the matter
less stringent.
Ms. Otto acknowledged the Commission's belief, and agreed with County Counsel's view of the handbook
regarding the General Plan Element approved in 1987, stating that the ALUC should have followed with
another action putting the onus back on the City. She admitted that the Element needs to be updated, and
she stressed that the City is doing so with the first step occurring tomorrow and it just being a matter of
time. She assured the ALUC that the City wants to work cooperatively, recognizing the ALUC's
importance while suggesting the action might not be in the spirit of cooperation.
Replying to Commissioner Harris, Ms. Otto said she carmot guarantee a time frame for, as Mr. Fregoso
stated, tomorrow is the first step to modifying the Element. She noted that there had been several changes
to the AELUP during the last 17 years and that a lot ofword-smithing has been done, although direct
inconsistencies appear minimal. She conceded that although the City has taken some different views it is
on the same plane and not in conflict with the AELUP, and she concluded the City will be happy to get the
input from the ALUC staff who are experts in this area.
Commissioner H. Beverburg recalled that during his chairmanship in 1987, the ALUC reviewed the City's
plan, found a couple of needed corrections, and returned the documentto the City where it died. He asked
what assurance ALUC has that results will be different this time.
The Chairman stated that the history has been told correctly and although there isn't any guarantee, he
wants to reassure the City of the ALUC's desire to reach a mutual determination and consistency for Santa
Ana with its General Plan Element passing muster. He expressed his optimism, urging the City not to
construe the AL UC action wrongly, and noting that individual Commissioners and staff are available to
work toward that goal, asking Ms. Otto to convey these views to everyone at the City.
On the motion and second of Commissioners O'Malley and Propst, the item was continued to the next
meeting, with the understanding that the City of Santa Ana be notified that, pursuant to PUC Section
21676.5, the Commission reiterates that all future projects (not just General Plan/Specific Plan (Zoning)
75C-177
ALUC Minutes
Page 4
March 18, 2004
Amendments as specified in PUC Section 21 676(b)] be referred to the Commission for appropriate reviews
and Determination of Consistency or Inconsistency, with the clarification that this Commission action is
intended now to apply to projects that are proposed to exceed the heights of the JW AFAR Part 77
Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces (generally east of Fairview Road and south of McFadden Avenue as
shown on the attached "Santa Ana Special Area Referral Map"), within the Height Restriction Zone as
depicted in the JWA AELUP.
2. City of Santa Ana - Request for Reconsideration of Geneva Commons Project (JW A AELUP)
previously considered on December 18, 2003 and January 15,2004:
Chairman Bresnahan explained that this item was agendized on the basis that new information would be
presented to the Commission. He noted that the written material provided doesn't include significant new
information to warrant a formal reconsideration of the project, previously reviewed in December and
January and acted upon then. He suggested that the ALUC receive verbal input from the public, the City
and the applicant to ascertain the basis for a motion to reconsider, and if so, to proceed with the question of
reconsideration.
Mr. Hans Van Ligten of Rutan and Tucker, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Mola and Geneva Commons
LLC, addressed the Commission. He referred the members to his letter of February 25, 2004 and to
additional materials provided at the request of ALUC staff. He explained that the primary issue new to the
Commission regards the Development Agreement between First American Title and the City of Santa Ana,
wherein density and permissible development criteria translates into the physical nature of the site and an
altitude that apparently conflicts with the condition imposed by the ALUC. He added that the ALUC
meeting minutes show a clear record that staff's recommendation for Consistency was correct, which it
still is, and that the proponents cannot understand the statutory or other basis for the conditional approval
from the record. Mr. Van Ligten noted that bodies such as ALUC are bound by the rules and laws relating
to such proceedings, and the standard requires the finding of consistency or inconsistency based on the
adopted plan. He stressed that there is ample evidence in the record that the project is consistent, and
repeated their request for a reconsideration based on the record. He concluded that the ALUC leaves them
no other remedy, because of the position taken that it was difficult to see that the position was not really
true, with the ALUC occupying a separate important role in determining consistency/inconsistency in the
first instance. He repeated that the record is clear, staff's recommendation is correct in both instances, and
the project is fully consistent with the adopted plan.
Chairman Bresnahan recalled previous deliberations, asking about the source in the documents that there
was previous entitlement to build to 20-25 stories on that particular parcel.
Mr. Van Ligten explained that the development agreement provides a square footage entitlement, and the
only way to obtain that permitted density on the site is by developing vertically.
Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Van Ligten stated that the Development Agreement vests the rights of the
property owner and his successors and assigns with the options for determining the configuration, such as
one 25-story building rather than two l2-story towers. He added his point that the ALue has jurisdiction
provided by law to review a referral from Santa Ana for consistency with the AELUP, noting that they
don't disagree with the FAA's recommendation or conclusions. He stated that the only issue is having
gone to ALUC for consistency or inconsistency as measured by the adopted plan, not by an ad hoc standard
that exists over the plan, the staff reports being clear that the adopted standard is different than the height
opposed by the ALUC.
75C-178
AL U C Minutes
Page 5
March 18, 2004
Replying to Commission Propst, Mr. Van Ligten surmised that the Development Agreement was not
referred to the ALUC at the time since the project appeared to be consistent with the AELUP, hence no one
thought there would be issues. He confirmed that the agreement is between the proponent and the City.
Replying to Commissioner 0 'Malley's questions about actual elevations and the status of navaids at JW A,
Mr. Franco Mola, the developer, stated the site elevation is 31' AMSL and that the height limits for navaids
is whatever the FAA says, repeating that FAA has reviewed and approved the planned height and therefore,
the project is consistent and the developer has that right.
Commissioner O'Malley stated his understanding of the FAA's work, but he desires to know the navaid
status as relates to the various height limits in the documents. He added that ALUC did not get replies to
the letters sent to FAA and ALP A whose opinions should be critical to all concerned.
Mr. Mola stated that any future developer wants to understand the rules and what height works, as well as
extraordinary reasons such as reflective glass, to make the decision on what height suits that building. He
added that in developer's vernacular, when height is taken away, it will be too low, repeating their position
that they have the right to build to that height, unless circumstances don't allow.
Commissioner O'Malley noted that on various approach procedures, a building of such height could
interfere with inbound aircraft picking up the signal.
Mr. Van Ligten stated for the record that the Commissioner was referring to the MacArthur Place EIR,
approved some years ago with the Development Agreement, after a 45-day comment period. He stated that
no comments seem to have been made that the EIR was incorrect.
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg and Chairman Bresnahan, Staff Analyst Brady confirmed that
ALUC staff had commented on the EIR NOP at the time, referencing JW A, the navaids and the FAR Part
77 procedure. He referred to several staff report maps and related the history of the FAA navaids at JW A
and the Hutton Center #4 building, explaining that the FAA had removed their VOR transmitter and
replaced it with an LDA system when they found the building to be distorting the VOR signals. He noted
that this preserved the second instrument approach to Runway 19R for noise abatement purposes, and
described inconsistencies in the EIR's graphics labeling and corresponding text about the navaid imaginary
surfaces. Mr. Brady located the Geneva Commons site on the graphics and opined that the 21-story
building's relation to the surface would need precise calculation. He concluded that he doesn't know
whether that imaginary surface represents the point at which obstruction lights are required, as it is a
separate criterion from the more familiar Part 77 surfaces.
Vince Fregoso, Santa Ana city planner, explained that the area is designated as height exempt, in that
vertical limits are based on FAA review and the City's shade/shadow criteria.
Replying to Chairman Bresnahan about square footage vis a vis building height, Mr. Fregoso stated that the
City was looking for a project that would be consistent with all of its plans, a Class A high-rise residential
tower which an l8-story provides. He added that the 18-story, atop the 3-level parking structure creates
more of an iconic type design there, as the City has plenty of 12-story buildings, noting that the 18-story is
not average or ordinary, Class A is verticality. He confirmed the Chairman's comments that square footage
could have been met, but a definitive selection was made for a tall building.
Commissioner Propst opined that it is a terrible place for this building, and a discussion ensued about a
reconsideration.
75C-179
ALUC Minutes
Page 6
March 18,2004
Commissioner Webb moved to reconsider the project, with Commissioner H. Beverburg seconding.
Commissioner Propst read from the AELUP text regarding the legal mission of the ALUC to provide for
orderly airport growth while protecting the public. He noted the ALUe's planning role and the AELUP
policy to differ from FAR Part 77 for the sake of the public welfare and air safety, while observing the
project site to be under the right downwind or right base leg turn for Runway 19R. He stated that this falls
into aircraft traffic pattern protection, and that his intention is to find the project inconsistent.
Commissioner O'Malley agreed and supported exercising the latitude to find the project inconsistent
regarding public safety.
After the show of hands vote on the motion to reconsider, which passed, Executive Officer Golding
requested a roll call vote.
Ms. Golding recorded that Commissioners Webb, H. Beverburg, Campbell and Propst voted to reconsider,
with Commissioners Bresnahan, O'Malley and Harris voting no.
Commissioner Propst moved to find the project Inconsistent, with Commissioner H. Beverburg seconding.
Chairman Bresnahan acknowledged the motion and second, and requested presentation of the staff report to
be followed by any additional testimony.
Staff Analyst Brady referred to summary bullets he had prepared, to be followed by specific sections of the
staff report should the Commission so desire.
Mr. Brady described the additional handouts consisting of JW A AELUP Sections 2.1.3 and 3.2.1 and
graphics depicting the aircraft flight tracks and project site. Noting that the City had requested this
reconsideration based on new information in its submittal and testimony today, he next summarized the
background history of the project area resulting from a search of the AL UC files for the 1986-1990 period
and review of key MacArthur place documents provided by the City. Mr. Brady noted that the ALUC had
found the City's Airport Environs Element to be Inconsistent in August 1987, lacking certain needed
changes, which were never subsequently made by the City. He related the City's approval of the
MacArthur Place Specific Plan and associated EIR in December 1987, which relied on the Element
regarding the area's height limits. He continued, stating the City approved the Development Agreement in
January 1988, it being intended to implement the overall project.
Mr. Brady pointed out that during the same time-frame the ALUC acted on City referrals for MacArthur
Place, finding the project zoning! specific plan to be Consistent, apparently based on mitigation measures
and a site plan from the draft EIR. He continued with the ALUC February 1988 Consistency finding, that
the subsequent General Plan Amendment was the same project as previously acted on. In June 1989, the
ALUC found the first high-rise building of 12 stories to be Consistent, although an apparent FAA technical
error went undetected then.
Mr. Brady referred to the staff report section that responds to comments by the project's attorney, wherein
staff had found no record of the ALUC reviewing the Development Agreement, nor specific height limits
in the specific plan for individual parcels, nor any evidence that the Development Agreement granted a
vested right to build a 20-25 story building at the Geneva Commons site.
75C-180
ALUC Minutes
Page 7
March 18, 2004
Mr. Brady continued with the current staff report conclusion, stating that after reviewing all of this
material, staff has not found a basis to change the previous assumptions that led to staffs recommendation
oftechnical consistency with the JWA AELUP. Noting the ALUC's January 15 action to amend staffs
recommendation, he reiterated staffs conclusion that the project is technically consistent subject to the
same conditions specified previously.
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, Mr. Brady related the details of the apparent FAA technical error
in the aeronautical study for the 12-story building in 1989 which based on its height would become an
obstruction, noting that red obstruction lights were provided, none the less.
Mr. Hans Van Ligten, on behalf of Geneva Commons, noted the question of standards, and the fact that the
staff report is consistent with both hearings in that the standards in the adopted plan are clear, allowing the
ALUC to review FAR Part 77 compliance and conclude that the project is consistent. He stated that
nothing in the plan justifies selecting an arbitrary height as a project condition, making the action arbitrary,
capricious and illegal under state law. He continued that it is inappropriate for the ALUC to ad hoc use
such a standard without following the AELUP amendment process, with public involvement. Likewise, he
stated it is inappropriate to condition a project that complies with a standard illegally adopted through a de
facto amendment. He pointed out that the statute allows an annual amendment with notice to adjoining
jurisdictions, and the ALUC is de factor redefining standards that will affect numerous communities
besides Santa Ana. He stressed that standards capable of articulation are in the written adopted plan, which
can't be modified on the fly. He disputed the ALUC view of the state's provision for general health and
safety, since the law says consistency/inconsistency with the plan and the plan says the sole standard is the
FAA's report, with deference to the FAA's determination.
Mr. Van Ligten repeated their request that the ALUC abide by its AELUP, state law and the FAA report.
He suggested that the ALUC and its staff take the analysis a step further in terms of the Development
Agreement which, as a separate legal document, froze development standards upon its adoption. Repeating
the earlier testimony about no specific height limits, he stressed that the owner has a vested right to a
maximum square footage for the project, and that the plan was reviewed by ALUC a long time ago. He
stated the property owner's difficulty in understanding the standard that is being applied, since the record
does not show an articulable legal standard for arbitrarily finding the project inconsistent.
Mr. Van Ligten opined that choosing inconsistency will have a broad impact, because property owners and
jurisdictions will have no option but to scrutinize the ALUC action of not following its own plan. He
repeated that the legal amendment process would include public notice and hearing, but that the ALUC is
de facto modifying its standards and applying a new, different standard not provided by the AELUP. He
added that a general welfare standard is inconsistent with past ALUC practice as indicated by the staff
report, that there is probably no prior example in the ALUC's history, and is inconsistent with the PUC
provisions. He concluded that it is outside of the ALUC jurisdiction to do so, repeating that their request is
to obey the law as everyone else must, and to apply the AELUP as adopted since staffs position is clear
that the project technically complies, which is the only correct evidence.
Replying to Commissioner Webb, Commissioner Propst referred to the AELUP, second paragraph on page
13 and quoted "that the Commission may utilize criteria criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at
individual airports" and "which may differ from those contained in Part 77" and "should evidence of
health, welfare or air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action". He noted the height and proximity
of the residential project to the operating airspace. Referring to the page again, he noted the ALUC's
responsibility to simultaneously protect the airports and the people, voicing his view that the motion leans
more to protecting people. Noting that he was not a member in 1987 or 1989, he stated that height seems
75C-181
ALUC Minutes
Page 8
March 18, 2004
always to have been an issue, and concluded that the ALUC would be acting in accordance with the
AELUP in a finding of Inconsistency.
Commissioner H. Beverburg referred to AELUP page 25, section 3.2.8 regarding the height restriction
zone wherein a project that by reason of height or location would cause a diminution in the utility of an
airport is unacceptable to the ALUC. He opined that the project as proposed could probably result in
reduction of the minimum and movement of the JW A threshold, and should be found inconsistent.
A short discussion ensued among Commissioners and staff regarding building heights in sea level and
above ground elevations, with Mr. Mola confirming that the top of his building would be 240-50 ft. above
street level. Chairman Bresnahan reviewed his preparation for this item, agreeing with the Commissioners
who consider this to be a very sensitive area that is in the approach zone for JW A. Referring to the flight
track graphic, he noted it represents a single day thus demonstrating significant overflight of the parcel at
low altitude. He disagreed that the ALUC may only consider the FAA's view and concurred with
Commissioner H. Beverburg that the Commission, not the staff, makes determinations based on all of the
facts. He noted the FAA concern over the safety of flight and FAA's narrow focus, stating that ALUC's
concerns go beyond the FAA's. He observed that it is a sensitive area for navaids and that the FAA
considers various factors by modeling projects on their computer, but after construction the FAA flight
tests all of their navaids. Should they discover a problem, the solution is to reduce the utility of the airport,
and an ALUC mandate is to prevent that. He recalled a large building further off the centerline which had
that affect to increase minimums and another building that rendered the VOR inoperative. He noted that
despite his concerns with the traffic pattern in this sensitive area, the number the Commission used was not
arbitrary and capricious but was the existing building height there today.
Mr. Franco Mola emphasized that the issue is about a lot of land owners encountering the same problem as
he and had there been public hearings and environmental reports, he would not be appearing with a
building higher than the ALUC believes it should be. He stressed that he is not asking for an exemption
but just to build within his rights. He cautioned that ALUC should go through the process if they intend to
rezone the areas which in effect they are doing in his case, although many other entities will be affected to
the point of a huge lawsuit. He urged ALUC to go through the process if they intend to change the rules
but that they are being arbitrary in devising the height limit.
Chairman Bresnahan noted that it might be different if the City of Santa Ana were a consistent agency,
stating that he does not believe ALUC is ad hoc amending the AELUP or inventing a new rule, but rather is
taking all of the information and making an informed action. He added that the City has the ability to
override the ALUC if the City believes this to be the best plan. He concluded that ALUC is only reflecting
what they believe is best for the airplanes flying over the site and the people living in and around it.
Replying to Mr. Mola, Chairman Bresnahan confirmed that he is only considering and commenting on the
current project parcel and not dealing in hypotheticals in other jurisdictions.
Commissioner Harris mentioned the crash yesterday of a plane flying low in limited visibility.
Mr. Mola repeated that he is only asking for some consistency and to let all involved entities know what
the ALUC wants so it will not be a guessing game.
Chairman Bresnahan stated his hope that Santa Ana soon becomes a consistent agency and explained why
he is prepared to vote for the motion when he previously voted for the conditional approval at 229 ft.,
75C-182
ALUC Minutes
Page 9
March 18, 2004
being a height that already existed, and with some shielding discussion being possible, although he has
never been in favor of the practice, the Commission had continued a long history of conditional findings.
But for the reasons he stated and for the concerns he has and his reading of the AELUP, he will be
comfortable voting for inconsistency.
Commission H. Beverburg observed that actions in 1987 and 1989 occurred in a different era when there
were other places for airplanes to come when JW A was not the only option.
Replying to the Chairman, Ms. Golding confirmed that the previous project approval on an adjacent parcel
was for a 12-story building and that the site diagram in the EIR showed two 6-story buildings at the project
site, the EIR not being an entitlement document.
Chairman Bresnahan reiterated that the flight tracks show the site experiences a significant amount of
overflight with the resulting noise and that if built, hopefully the occupants will like aviation and airplanes.
On the motion and second of Commissioners Propst and H. Beverburg, with Commissioner Webb voting
No, the Geneva Commons project was found to be Inconsistent with the JW A AELUP by a vote of 6 - 1.
ONGOING BUSINESS:
3. Administrative Status Report:
Executive Officer Golding referred the Members to two additional letters meant to be distributed at the
February meeting which was cancelled, as well the letter Commissioner Harris requested to be appended to
the minutes.
4. Proceedings with Consistent Agencies:
Ms. Golding reported no changes, and stated that she will keep the Members updated on activity in the
Irvine Business Complex.
5. Proceedings with Inconsistent Agencies:
Ms. Golding reported no changes. Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, she explained that a staff
working session, not a public meeting, is scheduled for tomorrow with Santa Ana. She added that she has
made it clear that the Commission itself will subsequently review and decide on the City's effort to
become Consistent.
6. Items oflnterest to the Public:
No one from the public wished to address the Commission.
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, Deputy County Counsel Jack Golden explained the perspective
that it is staffs job to look at the technicalities and the Commissioners' job to exercise discretion on health,
safety and welfare. He noted that staff found the project to fit technically within the FAA rules and
consequently found the project technically consistent, adding it is within the purview of the ALUC to go
beyond based on various factors in the AELUP, to apply the ALUC's discretion more readily than staff
may. He concluded that is how he separates the perspective, while noting that while not having written the
report, he is merely explaining his understanding of what had occurred.
75C-183
ALUC Minutes
Page 10
March 18,2004
Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, the Chairman opined that the project reviewed exemplified
everyone doing their job as best as they can, staff and Commissioners alike.
Alternate Commissioner Kranser referred to the last paragraph of his letter wherein he asked the Chair to
reconsider his position in view of all Measure W litigation having been settled, signed off by the A WG and
OCRAA, and Measure W being uncontested law, knowing that the litigation is of concern. The Chairman
explained his disinclination to reconsider although accepting Mr. Kranser's letter at face value. He added
that he believes Measure W is moot as the City ofIrvine has annexed the El Toro base.
Commissioner O'Malley moved to accept Mr. Kranser's request to discuss the issue at the next meeting
which may not be a full agenda, thus providing an opportunity to air the matter, have issues explained, and
allow the ALUC to make a decision to move forward. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. A
discussion ensued among the Commissioners and staff regarding the exact wording of the motion and the
current status of the Base property.
Commissioner O'Malley noted the pressure to start building homes on land unrelated to aircraft activity,
stressing he is just asking to agendize the matter so it can be discussed and the ALUC can hear from
experts.
Commissioner Propst noted he requested and received all documents on this item and that he sees no new
evidence or information meriting revisiting the issue through an agenda item regardless of Measure W.
Alternate Commissioner Kranser noted that Measure W amended the County General Plan, which is the
geographic area of the AELUP.
Commissioner Propst opined he doesn't think that the ALUC works for the Board of Supervisors, since the
PUC provides several appointing bodies and the power to meet. Another discussion ensued among the
Commissioners and staff regarding the precise wording of the motion, resulting in the agreement that the
motion is to direct staff to bring an agenda item that would be a discussion toward an AELUP amendment
in the future relating to El Toro.
Following a final discussion among Commissioners and staff, agreeing that a two-step process is being
proposed, consisting of first discussion and subsequent amendment, the motion failed on a roll call vote of
2 ayes, 4 noes and one abstention.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
::;~~
Executive Officer
75C-184
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR
ORANGE
COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue · Costa Mesa, California 92626 · 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
March 31, 2004
RECEIVED
APR 0 1 2004
SANTA ANA PLANNING DEPi.
Mr. Vince Fregoso, Senior Planner
City of Santa Ana
Planning & Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone Change
Dear Mr. Fregoso:
At the request of the City of Santa Ana, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County took up
the matter of a reconsideration of the Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone Change project at its Regular
Meeting of March 18,2004. This project had previously been referred by the City, and had been acted upon by
the ALUC on January 15,2004, pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b). The ALUC
received public testimony, in order to determine if there was any new information pertinent to the project such
that the Commission would reconsider the item. Following this written and verbal input, it was duly moved,
seconded, and carried by the Commission on a vote of 4 - 3, to reconsider the project.
ALUC subsequently received the staff report and public testimony, with its deliberations focused on the
relevant sections of its Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP), with particular
attention to Section 2.1.3 "Building Height Restrictions" (pp. 13 & 14), and to Section 3.2.1 "General Policy"
(pp. 20 & 21).
Whereupon the matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded, and carried by the Commission on a vote of 6 - 1
to find the City of Santa Ana - Geneva Commons - MacArthur Place Zone Cha..'1ge to be Inconsistent with the
Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Please be aware that
Sections 21676, 21676.5 and 21677 of the Public Utilities Code were recently amended to require that when a
local agency governing body (e.g. your City Council) proposes to overrule an ALUC determination, the local
agency must provide the ALUC and CalTrans a copy of the local agency's proposed findings at least 45 days
prior to any decision to overrule the ALUC.
If you have any questions regarding this proceeding, please contact me at 949-252-5170 or at
jgolding@ocair.com.
For the Commission,
~~~
Joan S. Golding
Executive Officer
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
ExprS~E185
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR
ORANGE
COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue · Costa Mesa, California 92626.949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
February 17,2005
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2005
SAffrA /~NA PLANNING DEFT
Mr. Jay Trevino, Planning Manager
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-20)
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SUBJECT: City of Santa Ana - Proposed Overrule Action on Geneva Commons Project at
MacArthur Place
Dear Mr. Trevino:
Regarding the subject City Overrule Action, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for
Orange County wishes to provide the following comments.
Please be advised that California Public Utilities Code Section 21678 states: "With respect to a
publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to
Section 21676, 21676.5, or 21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the
operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury
caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the
commission's action or recommendation."
Also, please be advised that California Business & Professions Code Section 11010 requires the
following statement to be included on sale/lease disclosure documents for developments within
an ALUC's "Airport Influence Area":
"NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known
as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some
of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations
(for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances
can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if
any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine
whether they are acceptable to you."
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6~~04-11/Z0A 04-5
7lbtigft36
City of Santa Ana
February 17, 2005
Page 2
The ALUC disagrees with numerous assertions among the "Specific Findings" to be made by the
City Council. The City's findings call into question the legality of the JWA AELUP. Without
addressing the reasons why the JWA AELUP is a binding, legal document on the merits, suffice it
to say that unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction were to rule otherwise, the JW A
AELUP is presumed valid, and jurisdictions within its environs are legally obligated to comply
with its terms.
In the course of conducting three public hearings on the Geneva Commons project, the ALUC
made two successive determinations. First, the ALUC determined that the mitigated project
would be conditionally Consistent with the JWA AELUP iflowered to an elevation of229'
Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), which is the existing maximum physical height in that district.
Subsequently, after being asked to reconsider the project, the ALUC determined that the project
as originally, and still, designed would be Inconsistent with the JWA AELUP. These decisions
were based on the facts in the written record and during extensive discussion by the Commission.
By virtue of being clearly stated inJWA AELUP Sections 1.2 "Purpose and Scope" and 2.0
"Planning Guidelines," every Commissioner understands our complex legal charge to protect the
public airports from encroachment by incompatible land use development, while simultaneously
protecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens who work and live in the airport's environs.
To this end, and as also statutorily required, our ALUC proceedings are benefited by the several
Members "having expertise in aviation."
As stated in the JWA AELUP, the ALUC has the responsibility to consider the broader
perspective in matters affecting the public's well being and the viability of public aviation
facilities. The ALUC accomplishes these overall goals by applying its discretion to evaluate
individual projects based on a wide range of facts gathered through public testimony and
Commissioners' knowledge, in addition to informative analysis provided by staff. As the public
record of our several hearings shows, our deliberations took into account numerous relevant
factors. Though the Commission does not generally make or adopt formal findings, it is clear
from the minutes of the meetings what facts and factors the Commissioners considered in
arriving at their decision. These included, but were not limited to: limitations on the FAA's
ability to protect public airports and aircraft operations from encroachment by local incompatible
land use development; the history of nearby development adversely affecting the FAA's flight
procedures and electronic navigation aids at JW A; the function of JW A as Orange County's
primary General Aviation Airport on a 24-hour per day, 365-days per year basis; that Mr. Mola's
building as proposed would be the tallest building in the area to come before the ALUC to that
point; the cumulative effect of multiple high-rise projects in the area; the flight tracks going
directly over the area; proximity to aircraft for noise and safety purposes; the applicant's
invitation to impose a height restriction; the possibility of an aircraft hitting the building; the
additional level of comfort the commission would have if the building did not penetrate the
imaginary surfaces; that the project site is under the right downwind or right base leg turn for
Runway 19R, which falls into aircraft traffic pattern protection; the continuing inconsistency of
75C-187
City of Santa Ana
February 17,2005
Page 3
the Santa Ana General Plan's Airport Environs Element (and associated components such as the
Noise Element); and the likelihood of single event noise disturbance to future residents. Also,
concurrent with these commission deliberations, JW A had communicated its general concerns
with encroachment by incompatible development, to the ALUC. Since the Commission has no
record of receiving the CEQA documentation for this project, we may have had further
comments or reasons to find the project either consistent or inconsistent had that document been
provided.
In fact, during our proceedings various Commissioners cited JW A AELUP policies in light of
the ALUC's planning role. Referring to Section 2.1.3 (page 13), a Member quoted "that the
Commission may utilize criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at individual airports" and
"which may differ from those contained in Part 77" and "should evidence of health, welfare or
air safety surface sufficient to justify such an action," noting the height and proximity of the
residential project to the operating airspace. Referring to the page again, he noted the ALUC's
responsibility to simultaneously protect the airports and the people, voicing his view that the
motion leans more to protecting people.
Another Member referred to AELUP Section 3.2.8 (page 25), regarding the height restriction
zone wherein a project that by reason of height or location would cause a diminution in the
utility of an airport is unacceptable to the ALUC. He opined that the project as proposed could
probably result in reduction of the minimums and movement of the JW A threshold, and should
be found inconsistent. The Chairman observed: that it is a sensitive area for navaids and that the
FAA considers various factors by modeling projects on their computer, but after construction the
FAA flight tests all of their navaids. Should they discover a problem, the solution is to reduce
the utility of the airport, and an ALUC mandate is to prevent that. He recalled a large building
further off the centerline which had that affect to increase minimums and another building that
rendered the VOR inoperative. He noted that despite his concerns with the traffic pattern in this
sensitive area, the number the Commission used was not arbitrary and capricious but was the
existing building height there today, reiterating that the flight tracks show the site experiences a
significant amount of overflight with the resulting noise and that if built, hopefully the occupants
will like aviation and airplanes.
We have noted the lack of reference to avigation easement dedication as a mitigation measure
and a lawful means for protecting both the Airport proprietor and the City of Santa Ana
regarding aircraft noise and related effects upon future residents. Similarly, the proposed
findings on the topic of safety do not include the safety of people in aircraft utilizing the Airport,
especially important since general aviation aircraft may arrive/depart the Airport from/to a
multitude of directions. Furthermore, we have also noted that numerous references to the FAA's
formal determination do not mention the notations therein that the project is critical to flight
safety and that proximity to the airport may subject the future occupants to attendant noise.
Lastly, there was such an apparent unwillingness of the City staff to consider any of the
75C-188
City of Santa Ana
February 17, 2005
Page 4
suggestions from County Counsel in his August 6, 2004 letter recommending changes to the
General Plan Airport Environs Element to achieve consistency with the AELUP, that it seemed
counter-productive to respond in kind, and consequently the County Counsel's office and the
ALUC stand by the positions taken in said letter.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
cc: Members of City Council
Members of City Planning Commission
City Manager
75C-189
OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF ORANGE
10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1379
SANTA ANA, CA 92702-1379
(714) 834-3300
FAX: (714) 834-2359
BENJAMIN P. de MAYO
COUNTY COUNSEL
DONALD H. RUBIN
CHIEF ASSISTANT
DEBORAH M. GMEINER
ROBERT L. AUSTIN
SENIOR ASSISTANTS
Writer's Direct Dial Number
RICHARD D. OVIEDO
HOWARD SERBIN
BARBARA LARKIN STOCKER
JAMES L. TURNER
NICHOLAS S. CHRIS OS
THOMAS F. MORSE
WAI'IDA S. FLORENCE
HOPE E. SNYDER
THOMAS C. AGIN
SHERIE CHRISJ:E'olSEN KEOUGH
ADRIENNE SAURO HECKMAN
KAREN R. PRA TIlER
JIM PERSINGER
GEOFFREY K. HUNT
JACK W. GOLDEN
CHRISTOPHERJ.MULLER
DANIEL P. TORRES
JOHN H. ABBOTT
MICHELLE L. PALMER
WARD BRADY
CHRISTOPHER M DARGAN
JANELLE B. PRICE
RACHEL M BA VIS
ANN E. FLETCHER
MARGARET E. EASTMAN
DANA J. STIrS
JAN T. MARTIN
MARIANNE VAN RIPER
JAMES C. HARMAN
(714) 834-3357
August 6, 2004
Ms. Kylee Otto
Deputy City Attorney
City of Santa Ana
City Attorney's Office
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Proposed Amended Airport Environs Element of City's General Plan
Dear Ms. Otto:
JULIE J. AlOIN
LAURIE A. SHADE
DANIEL H. SHEPHARD
JOYCE RILEY
PAULA A. WHALEY
THOMAS A. MULLER
STEVEN C. MULLER
ALEXANDRA G. MORGA:-.J
CAROLYN S. FROST
ROBERTN. ERVAIS
BETH L. LEWIS
LAURA D. KNAPP
JEFFREY M. RICHARD
ROGER P. FREEMAN
NICOLE A. SIMS
NIKHIL G. DAFTARY
JEANNIE SU
JAMES C. HARVEY
MARK R. HOWE
WENDY J. PHlLLIPS
TERI L. MAKSOUDIAN
LEON J. PAGE
ANGEUCA CAS11LLO DAFTARY
KAREN L. CHRISTENSEN
MICHAEL A. HAUBERT
A~T.~EHURST
RYANM F. BARON
BRAD R. POSIN
LORI D. BARCELONA
DEPUTIES
One of the fundamental responsibilities assigned to airport land use commISSIons
("ALUC") by the STATE AERONAUTICS Act is to review particular types of local actions for
compliance with the criteria and policies set forth in the ALUC's adopted compatibility plans.
As I am sure you are aware, of all the types ofland use actions which an ALUC reviews, general
plans require the most careful scrutiny because once the ALUC has deemed the general plan
consistent with the compatibility plan, most subsequent land use actions and development
proposals will not be reviewed by the ALUC unless the local agency, in this case the City of
Santa Ana ("City"), agrees to submit them. Therefore, in an attempt to anticipate concerns that
the ALUC may have with respect to the City's proposed General Plan amendments, and to
coordinate with you on these issues prior to ALUC review, I have evaluated the proposed
amendments in the context of both the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(January 2002), generated by the State of California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics, the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") for John Wayne Airport, Orange
County ("JW A"), and related documents. Though the General Plan Amendment submitted by
the City on July 19, 2004, was a step forward in achieving consistency with the AELUP, this
evaluation has resulted in additional issues surfacing that, in my opinion, should be addressed in
order to attain consistency of the City's General Plan Amendment with the AELUP for JW A. In
my discussions of some of these issues with ALUC Executive Officer, Joan Golding, she
informed me that she had raised similar issues in the June 14, 2004, meeting between Ms.
Golding, Mr. Alfred Brady, and City staff and consultants.
G:\advisoryljgoldenljack golden 2004lAirpo
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6~~~~~b04-5
Ms. Kylee Otto, Deputy City Attorney
August 6, 2004
Page 2
It appears from my review of the proposed General Plan amendments that the empha~is
of the City's efforts has been to assure that its general plan element is consistent with state aI?-d
federal law, as City staff interprets it, while giving less attention to the fact that state law requires
the City's General Plan to be consistent with the AELUP for JW A. (PUBLIC UTILITIES COI;>E
~21676). '
If the City disagrees with the contents of the AELUP, it should have so stated during the
consultation and public comment period when the AELUP was amended in 2002. Since it did
not do so, the AELUP as adopted stands, and the City, to be consistent, must amend its General
Plan to conform to the AELUP as it exists today. See, GOVT. CODE ~65302.3. The portion of
the AELUP with which the City seems to have the most concern (the public health, safety and
welfare standard) has been a part of the AELUP since 1983, ifnot longer.
The Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 2004-03 in the Project
Description section on page 1 states that the "City of Santa Ana Airport Environs Element of the
General Plan .. . establishes a 10ng-range policy guide to safeguard the general welfare of
inhabitants within the vicinity of the John Wayne Airport." It further states "[t]he purpose of the
Airport Environs Element is to ensure that people in facilities are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect
navigable airspace. The Airport Environs Element establishes land use/noise compatibility
criteria, height restrictions and procedures to ensure that proposed development projects are in
compliance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport." Yet the draft
Airport Environs Element of the General Plan Amendment submitted does not use language as
strong as the negative declaration and seems to dance around the AELUP's land use
compatibility policies in such a manner that the proposed Element could potentially be used to
circumvent those important policies.
Elimination of direct conflicts between the City's General Plan Amendment and the
AELUP for JW A is not enough to guarantee that future land use development will adhere to the
compatibility criteria set forth in the AELUP. An implementation process must also be defined
either directly in the general plan, or by reference to a separately adopted ordinance, regulation
or other policy document.
There are three key facets to the process of ensuring compliance with airport land use
compatibility criteria:
(i) Delineation of Compatibility Criteria. Airport land use compatibility criteria
must be defined either in a policy document adopted by the City, or through
adoption of or reference to the ALUC's compatibility plan itself. Clear
delineation of intended land uses is key.
(ii) Identification of Mechanisms for Compliance. The mechanisms by which
applicable compatibility criteria will be tied to an individual development and
continue to be enforced must be identified. Conditional use permits or
development agreements are two possibilities.
75C-191
Ms. Kylee Otto, Deputy City Attorney
August 6, 2004
Page 3
(iii) Identification of Review and Approval Procedures. Lastly, the procedures fpr
review and approval of individual development proposals must be defined. The
types of actions that are to be submitted to the ALUC for review, and the timing
of such submittals relative to the internal review and approval process, also must
be indicated, with the goal in mind to achieve consistency. '
Some examples of the areas where the City's proposed General Plan Amendment does
not provide adequate assurance of compliance with the AELUP's compatibility criteria are as
follows:
1. The second paragraph on page one sets forth the statutory ALUC purposes
including "to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas
susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities
adversely affect navigable airspace."
The California state legislature's purpose in authorizing the creation of ALUC,
however, has remained largely unchanged since the early 1970s. The purpose is
succinctly stated in current law:
"It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each
public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as
to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise
standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of
new noise and safety problems.
It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare
by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use
measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these
areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE
S21670( a).
The law defines the powers and duties of ALUC in terms which parallel the
commissions' purpose as follows:
"To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity
of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that
the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to
incompatible uses." CAL.PUB.UTIL.CODE S21674(a).
The airport land use compatibility concerns of the JW A AELUP fall under three
broad headings: aircraft noise, building height restrictions, and safety. These
headings have been further divided into four basic concerns, as follows: aircraft
noise, overflight, safety and airspace protection.
75C-192
Ms. Kylee Otto, Deputy City Attorney
August 6, 2004
Page 4
The specific purposes of the ALUC and the powers and duties of the ALUC, fls
well as the specific AELUP land use compatibility policies with respect to each
land use compatibility concern, should be accurately set forth in the City's
General Plan Amendment consistent with statements made in the negative
declaration. Page 1 of the Airport Environs Element should also be revised ;to
accurately indicate that these policies are not just "ALUC goals," but have been
incorporated into the General Plan Amendment as City goals.
The proposed first paragraph in the Land Use Element states that these are
General Plan goals, but the Airport Environs Element does not. The goals and
policies stated in the Airport Environs Element should be internally consistent
with the Land Use Element, and consistent with the AELUP for JW A. This could
be accomplished, for example, by stating within the Airport Environs Element
itself that these are the goals of the General Plan, placing them in the list of
policies and repeating them in each relevant section. Essentially, it is important
that the land use, housing, transportation, noise, safety and open space elements of
the General Plan, as well as the land use maps, being among the likely candidates,
be internally and externally consistent with the AELUP policies.
2. In regard to question VII. D. on page 11 of the negative declaration, more facts
should be developed and a less conclusory discussion maintained. For example,
the ALUC has raised the concern that tall buildings in the MacArthur Place/
Hutton Center area are under relatively low general aviation flight patterns and
that approximately 22,000 fixed-wing aircraft typically fly over the proposed
location of these residential high-rises on an annual basis. The negative
declaration should be revised to reflect this concern, or should set forth evidence
as to why this is not of concern to the City and does not pose a "safety hazard to
people residing or working in the City."
State and federal airport land use compatibility guidelines also recommend that a
strict height limitation be imposed that is supported by substantial evidence to
show that buildings beyond a certain height would be an obstruction to navigation
of aircraft around JW A. As you are aware, long-term members of the ALUC
recall the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") clearing a building at Hutton
Center that ultimately interfered with the VHF Omni Range (VOR) navigational
aid at JW A. It is critical that this type of unintended result be avoided in the
future, based upon appropriate land use compatibility planning.
Further, it appears that stronger language concerning the heights of buildings in
the Land Use Element is being replaced with weaker, more subjective criteria.
The previous language acknowledged that tall structures within 3 miles of an
airport that are 200 feet or higher above ground level or runway level may have
the potential to obstruct air navigation. It is important that the Land Use Element
continue to contain direct and objective criteria regarding height limitations
consistent with the JWA AELUP. The Noise Element of the General Plan should
75C-193
Ms. Kylee Otto, Deputy City Attorney
August 6, 2004
Page 5
also reference avigation easements and notification requirements as potential toqls
to address noise issues, consistent with the JW A AELUP.
3. I understand that Mr. John Leyerle, on staff at JW A, and the former Manager pf
the Access and Noise Office, has previously provided suggestions that he believes
would improve the noise contour section on page 4 of the Airport Environs
Element. Essentially, he suggests referencing 65 dB CNEL and above. He also
suggests that buildings be required to be designed to be sufficiently indoor
oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on exterior living areas.
4. On page 11 of the Airport Environs Element, the City quotes language from the
AELUP inserting its name in the place of the ALUC as to recognizing the FAA as
the single authority. However, this language is taken out of context in that it does
not utilize the additional language from the AELUP (presently on pages 13
and 18), which has been a part of the Plan since at least as far back as 1983,
invoking the right to utilize criteria for protecting air traffic patterns which may
differ from Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR") Part 77, should evidence of
health, welfare, or air safety surface sufficiently to justify such an action. The
General Plan must be revised to achieve consistency with the JW A AELUP. This
criteria will essentially provide the City Council with the flexibility to invoke
such a public health, welfare and safety standard if the mere numbers do not tell
the full story.
In addition, the Airport Environs Element should require all development
proposals that exceed in height the imaginary surfaces as defined by the FAA in
FAR Part 77, as well as all development proposals that are described in Section
2.1.6 of the AELUP on pages 15 and 16, to be sent to the ALUC for a consistency
determination. The Airport Environs Element should also incorporate some of the
language set forth in the general land use policies on pages 20 and 21 of the
AELUP.
5. On page 17 of the Airport Environs Element only one sentence is devoted to
safety, basically implying that since there are no accident potential zones
("APZs") within Santa Ana there is no safety issue. This, of course, is not true
and is not consistent with the safety policies set forth in the JW A AELUP. The
City should incorporate into its General Plan the safety criteria provided in the
AELUP, in Section 3.2.1, on pages 20 and 21.
6. Policy 1.2 on page 19 should also advocate that noise sensitive land uses (i.e.,
residential, schools, parks, etc.) not be placed near existing flight paths, consistent
with the AELUP policies regarding the location of noise sensitive land uses in
noise impact areas.
75C-194
Ms. Kylee Otto, Deputy City Attorney
August 6, 2004
Page 6
7. The reference to "general public" in Goal 2 likely includes persons working in tpe
affected commercial projects and living in the residential projects, but Goal 2
should be revised to specifically define the "general public."
8. Policy 2.1 should also reference consultation with the ALUC.
9. Policy 2.3 should also reference compliance with the JW A AELUP.
10. A Policy 2.4 should acknowledge the stated goals to ensure that people and
facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents and to
ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace.
11. Policy 3.4 on page 20 should include consultation with the ALUC consistent with
Public Utilities Code S 21670, et seq. and Title 21 California Code of Regulations
S 3534 (regarding referral to ALUC of heliport applications).
Please accept my apology for taking so long to communicate this information to you, but
it was only during the past 7 to 10 days that I have been able to carefully review the submitted
materials in the context of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the JW A
AELUP. However, it is my understanding that many of these issues are points that have been
raised in less detail in prior conversations and meetings, including the June 14 meeting. Please
contact me with any questions or comments. If you would prefer ALUC staff submit additional
suggested language for the City's proposed General Plan Amendment, I will work with them to
do so.
Very truly yours,
BENJAMINP. de MAYO
COUNTY COUNSEL
By :.tdol s~~u~
cc: Airport Land Use Commissioner
Joan Golding, Airport Land Use Commission, Executive Officer
JWG:sa
75C-195
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Brett E. Franklin
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Claudia C. Alvarez
Lisa Bist
Alberta O. Christy
Mike Garcia
Jose Solorio
~
,(~~~
'"V V
CITY OF SANTA ANA
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA M-29 . P.O. BOX 1988
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
(714) 647-5201 . Fax (714) 647-6515
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Joseph W. Fletcher
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Patricia E. Healy
September 16, 2004
Jack W. Golden
Supervising Deputy
County Council of the County of Orange
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92702-1379
Re: City of Santa Ana Airport Environs Element
Dear Mr. Golden:
The purpose ofthis correspondence is to address the issues raised in your August 6, 2004
letter. As you are aware, the City of Santa Ana has withdrawn its application for review of
the City of Santa Ana Airport Environs Element ("AEE"), in great part due to your letter.
Chronolo2V
Before I address all of the City's concerns with your letter, I think it would be helpful to
provide a history of the AEE amendment to date:
1. According to ALUC, the City of Santa Ana has been an inconsistent agency since
the ALUC determined that the AEE adopted in 1987 was lacking in four minor
points.
2. Nothing of significance occurred until late last year, 1 when the ALUC informed the
City of the inconsistency with the AELUP and that the City should update the AEE.
3. In February 2004, Mr. Jay Trevino, the Planning Manager, as well as other city staff
members contacted ALUC staff to schedule a meeting with ALUC staffto discuss
ALUC's concerns about land use issues and development projects in Santa Ana.
Not only were city staffs repeated phone calls ignored for a couple of weeks, one
of Mr. Trevino's multiple calls to Ms. Golding was finally returned by Mr. Alfred
Brady. Unfortunately Mr. Brady's voice mail message indicated that Mr. Trevino
was to put his request for a meeting with ALUC staff in writing, which request Ms.
I In 2003, almost one full year after the adoption of the AELUP by the ALUC.
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6NA 04-11/Z0A 04-5
780'=1'96
cs 87
'.
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 2 of20
Golding would consider, discuss with the ALUC chair and then inform Mr. Trevino
whether the meeting request would be granted.2
4. Since ALUC staff refused to schedule a meeting, Mr. Steve Harding, the Executive '
Director of Planning and Building, and Mr. Trevino met with Ms. Golding's
superiors, Airport Director Alan Murphy and Deputy Airport Director Larry
Serafini, on Friday, February 27,2004. Mr. Harding and Mr. Trevino were told that
the inconsistent AEE gave the airport "heartburn" and that the changes required to
be consistent were "minor edits." Based on those representations, Mr. Harding and
Mr. Trevino committed to immediately draft the appropriate amendments to the
City's General Plan.
5. On Monday morning, March 1,2004, the City's Planning and Building Agency
began working on amending the element. This work required reprioritizing
significant on-going tasks and re-assigning numerous staff members so that the
AEE could be completed quickly.
6. On March 16, 2004, Mr. Vincent Fregoso picked up, at the ALUC offices, the
marked up copy of the City's 1987 AEE containing ALUC staffs comments.
7. On March 19,2004, Mr. Trevino, Mr. Fregoso, Ms. Golding, and Mr. Brady met to
discuss the AEE, and Santa Ana's interest in becoming a consistent agency.
8. On April 15, 2004, Ms. Hally Soboleske e-mailed Ms. Golding to provide the
timeline for the General Plan amendment. This schedule contemplated a referral to
ALUC on May 13,2004, the Planning Commission hearing on June 14,2004, and a
City Council hearing on July 19,2004. Ms. Golding responded on April 15, 2004
indicating that she would schedule the ALUC hearing for the June 17,2004 since
ALUC "likes to see projects after the planning commission's review and before the
City Council's review and decision."
9. On May 3, 2004, Ms. Maya DeRosa, Ms. Soboleske and I meet with Ms. Golding
and Mr. Brady to discuss ALUC staffs comments. At this meeting, the timeline
was again discussed with the ALUC staff. The ALUC staff again confirmed that the
AEE would be heard at the June 17, 2004 ALUC meeting.
10. On May 13,2004,3 after incorporating all of the ALUC's comments on the City's
previous AEE, the City submitted the proposed 2004 AEE to the ALUC. .
11. On June 4, 2004, Mr. Brady notified City Staff by voice mail that the AEE was not
going on the June meeting, but was going on the July 15, 2004.
12. On June 14,2004, City staff and ALUC staff met. The purpose of the meeting was
for ALUC staff to give the City comments on the proposed 2004 AEE. At that
2 It should be noted that the meeting was to be between City staff and ALUc staff, the presence of ALUC
members was not requested nor should it have been necessary.
3 The City submitted the AEE to ALUC on the date promised by the agreed-upon time line.
75C-197
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 3 of20
meeting, I expre'ssed concern about the imminent expiration of the 60-day
determination period under which ALUC must act on the City's application.4
13. On June 23, 2004, I informed you during a telephone conversation of all of the
above information. You informed me that if the City was going to enforce the 60-
day rule then ALUC would instead hold a special meeting and, in that case, the
AEE would likely be found inconsistent.
14. Despite this discouraging information, City staff continued to address amendments
ALUC was requesting in order to obtain a positive staff recommendation. In fact,
the City continued making requested changes up to immediately prior to the special
meeting. In order to facilitate the Commission's review of the proposed 2004 AEE,
City staff also prepared a redlined version of the AEE incorporating ALUC staffs
comments.s
15. On July 12,2004, the ALUC convened a special meeting. At that meeting, the
ALUC expressed displeasure with the redlined submittal, even though the changes
were minor and were made solely to satisfy ALUC staff. Unfortunately, ALUC
staff chose not to explain its role, and allowed the Commission to act under the
mistaken belief that this redline version was anew, last minute City-generated
submittal. Despite these misunderstanding, the City was told we were close, but
that staff wanted an opportunity to review the language to make sure their concerns
were captured by the added language.
16. Since the jurisdictional 60 day period was about to expire, and in the face of a
negative staffrecommendation on the May 13, 2004 submittal, the City withdrew
the May 13,2004 AEE submittal and resubmitted the redlined version of the AEE
incorporating the ALUC staffs changes. The City was informed we would meet
with ALUC staff in late July, which would allow the ALUC staff report to be
finalized the first week of August.
17. On August 3, 2004, Mr. John Leyerle called Mr. Trevino to set up a meeting for the
following day with ALUC staff and City Staff. City Staff and I cleared our
calendars to accommodate the meeting.
18. On August 4,2004, at around 12:00 p.m. Mr. John Leyerle called Mr. Trevino to
cancel the afternoon meeting allegedly at your request. Now, for the first time, 84
4 There was still time under the Brown Act to add this item to the June Agenda, but ALUc staff chose not to
do so because the agenda was already "full." Also, the City could have simply kept quiet so as to let the 60-
day determination period expire and thus become a consistent agency. The City chose not to do so.
S It should be noted that the City does not believe any of these minor edits were necessary for a rmding of
"consistency" by ALUc (the definition of the word "consistency" is discussed below), but in an effort to
cooperate with the ALUc and its staff, these minor edits were made to the AEE.
75C-198
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 4 of20
days after the City first submitted the proposed 2004 AEE for ALUC approval,6
legal counsel review had commenced.
19. On August 6, 2004, I received your letter, the subject of this correspondence.
You sent an e-mail on August 12,2004 asking for our response to your August 6,2004
correspondence, even though you did not request one in your letter. I received your e-mail !
on Tuesday morning August 17, 2004 and am writing this letter in response to your request
for the City's position.
As you can clearly see the City has been diligently working and cooperating with ALUC
staff to achieve consistency with the AELUP.
Nature of a General Plan
Before I address each of the issues you raise, your letter and conversations with ALUC
staff suggest that there may be confusion over two issues. The first is the purpose of a
general plan and second is what "project" is before ALUC.
General plans are long-range policies, objectives, and principles for a City. General plans
provide the policy while zoning provides the rules and standards. Therefore, general plans
operate on the macro level, they do not cover each detail rather they focus on policies. So
for example, listing a project timeline within a general plan would be inappropriate.
Also, for clarification, the AEE is an integral component of the City's General Plan. The
AEE is not a separate policy document. AU of the elements, e.g. the Land Use Element,
the Noise Element, and the AEE, together make up the City's General Plan. No one
document is superior to the others; they are merely broken down into elements for ease of
use and in general conformance to the limited obligation of Santa Ana, as a charter city, to
comply with a portion of State Planning Law.7 See Government Code Section 65302.
The second issue regarding what "project" is before ALUC is extremely concerning. This
confusion was expressed during ALUC's special meeting in July, during our phone
conversations with ALUC staff and now in your letter as well. ALUC's duty is to
6 At the ALUC meeting on August 19,2004, Ms. Golding indicated that the City was mistaken as to the time
ALUC staff has had the City's submittal, and that it has only been one month. However, the AEE submitted
on July 12,2004 was substantially identical to the May 13,2004 AEE, there were only five minor (5)
changes. Moreover, each of these changes was made at the request of ALUC staff. Your letter <:{oes not
address issues that were a result of these modifications, but rather contains issues that could have been raised
on the May 13,2004 submittal.
7 It is to be noted that Government Code section 65302.3, requiring a city's general plan to be consistent with
the AELUP, is not one of the sections either specified internally or in Government Code section 65700 as
applying to charter cities. Section 65700 states that absent such express application, the State Planning Law
does not apply to charter cities. Other consistency requ.irements of State Planning Law have been held not to
apply to charter cities. E.g., Verdugo Woodlands Homeowners Etc. Assn. v. City of Glendale (1986) 179
Cal. App. 3d 696.
75C-199
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 5 of20
determine whether Sanfa Ana's AEE, the Land Use Plan, and the Noise Element sections
of the General Plan are consistent with the AELUP. This is the only project currently
before ALUC. The ALUC will be acting beyond its jurisdiction if it is prejudiced by the
possibility of future projects8 in determining the consistency of this "project."
Response to Comments
Preliminarily there is nothing contained within your correspondence that identifies how the
AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP. I will discuss each of your issues below, for clarity,
I will quote the relevant section of your letter and then provide my response.
I. Page 1. Sentence 2
"As I am sure you are aware, of all the types of land use actions which an
ALUC reviews, general plans require the most careful scrutiny because
once the ALUC has deemed the general plan consistent with the
compatibility plan, most subsequent land use actions, and development
proposals will not be reviewed by the ALUC unless the local agency, in this
case the City of Santa Ana ("City 'j, agrees to submit them. "
This statement is misleading and inaccurate. Public Utilities Code Section 2l676(b)9
requires that "prior to amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or
approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary
established by the airport land use commission. . . the local agency shall first refer the
proposed action to the commission." The commission then determines whether the
amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning
ordinance or building regulation is consistent with the AELUP. Since the City of Santa
Ana is a built-out city, it is highly unlikely that any development about which the ALUC
would be concerned with would not necessitate one of the above referenced actions.
Moreover, it appears that Santa Ana is the only city in Orange County to warrant this
"careful scrutiny." ALUC staffhas admitted that the draft submitted on May 13,2004 was
more thoroughly analyzed than any other city in Orange County. Additionally, when Santa
Ana asked for the staff reports and subsequent action by ALUC for each of the cities listed
on the ALUC agenda as consistent, we were provided with documents from the 80's and
early 90's. There was nothing showing this "careful scrutiny" of these consistent agencies
after the AELUP's most recent revision adopted on December 19,2002.
8 Such as the residential towers (the NEXUS Project (of which the ALUC is aware) and the MOLA project
(which ALUC has found inconsistent). .
9 All statutory references herein are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise specified.
75C-200
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 6 of20
II. Page 1. Sentence 3
". . . [IJn an attempt to anticipate concerns that the ALUC may have with
respect to the City's proposed General Plan amendments, and to coordinate
with you on these issues prior to AL UC review, I have evaluated the
proposed amendments in the context of both the California Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook. . . the Airport Environs Land Use Plan
("AELUP") for John Wayne Airport, Orange County ("JWA 'J, and related
documents. "
I am uncertain what "related documents" you reviewed, but the only relevant document
that you needed to review was the AELUP. The language in the Handbook is irrelevant
for the determination of "consistency." Section 21674.7(a) states that the ALUC shall be
guided by the Handbook when they formulate, adopt or amend their AELUP. The City
"shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety and density criteria that are compatible
with airport operations" established by the Handbook "to the extent that the criteria has
been incorporated in to the plan prepared by the commission." Section 21674.7(b)
(emphasis added). Since the Handbook criteria were!!Q! incorporated into the AELUP it is
irrelevant to our discussion. to Consequently, the only document that the ALUC is legally
permitted to utilize to determine consistency is the AELUP.
III. Page 2. Paragraph 2
"If the City disagrees with the contents of the AELUP, it should have so
stated during the consultation and public review period when the AEL UP
was amended in 2002. ..
I am uncertain where you have gotten this impression; the City does not disagree with the
contents of the AELUP. As indicated above, the purpose of amending our general plan was
to be consistent with the AELUP. What the City disagrees with is the ever changing
"demands" to amend our general plan to become a "consistent agency," when the changes
are unsupported by the language of the AELUP or state law.
10 The courts have uniformly ruled that advisory guidelines have no place in reviewing allegations of
inconsistency in a general plan. E.g., Bovmds v. City of Glendale (1980)113 Cal. App. 3d 875, 885-886 ("In
summary, the decision making power in the area ofland use and planning still rests with the local
governmental agencies to be exercised within the constraints prescribed by enactments of the State
Legislature. When any attack is made upon the exercise of that decision making power and the adequacy of
the general plan within which it is to be exercised, a presumption of validity attaches to the actions of the
local governmental agency. Guidelines promulgated by the Department are not self-executing anddo not
have the binding effect oflaw. . ., [T]he authority ofth~ local government to regulate in the area should not
hinge upon subjective interpretation by courts or administrative boards of the vague or general language to
be found in the planning and land use law. If the Legislature desires to preempt the decision making power of
local governments in the field, it should specifically say so.") (emphasis added).
75C-201
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 7 of20
IV. Page 2. Paragraph 4 through Page 3. Paragraph I
"Elimination of direct conflicts between the City's General Plan
Amendment and the AEL UP for JW A is not enough to guarantee that future
land use development will adhere to the compatibility criteria set forth in
the AEL UP. ..
The City is not under the impression that only direct conflicts will be eliminated. The City
understands that case law holds that consistency requires "that a proposed project be
compatible with the objectives, polices, general land uses and programs specified in the
applicable plan. The courts have interpreted this provision as requiring that a project be 'in
agreement or harmony with' the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with
every detail thereof." San Franciscans upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County
of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA 4th 656, 678.
The City believes that the General Plan amendments submitted on May 13, 2004, and again
on July 12,2004, are in "agreement or harmony" with the AELUP.
Further, I was unable to find the "compatibility criteria" referenced in your letter within the
AELUP, and as such these criteria should not be necessary for a determination of the City's
"consistency." However, that being said, I am most confused by what you are asking for in
each of these "key facets."
"(0 Delineation ofCompatibilitv Criteria. Airport land use compatibility
criteria must be defined either in a policy document adopted by the City, or
through adoption of or reference to the AL UC 's compatibility plan itself
Clear delineation of intended land uses is key. ..
Your request is unclear. Are you requesting a copy of the City zoning map, or a copy of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code? You also you state, "[ c] lear delineation of intended land
uses is key." Are you asking for the existing land uses? If so, this is outside the scope of
ALUC's review. The ALUC can only review future projects, not what currently exists.
See Section 21674 and AELUP Section 1.1.
Are you asking for future land uses? If so this is outside the scope of ALUC's review at
this time. The project before ALUC is a general plan amendment. The City is not
proposing modification of any "land use" as part of this "project.,,11
II It should be noted that future projects will come before ALUC at an appropriate time for each project. For
example, the Nexus project will be submitted to ALUC for its review shortly. Any future project must be
reviewed on its own merits, just as this "project" must be reviewed on its own merits.
75C-202
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 8 of20
"(ii) Identification of Mechanisms for Compliance. The mechanisms by
which applicable compatibility criteria will be tied to an individual
development and continue to be enforced must be identified. Conditional
use permits or development agreements are two possibilities. ..
The "mechanisms for compliance" would not be contained within the General Plan. As
stated above, the City's General Plan is not an appropriate place for this type of nuts and
bolts discussion; it is the overlying policy document.
"(uO Identification of Review and Approval Procedures. Lastly, the
procedures for review and approval of individual development proposals
must be defined. The types of actions that are to be submitted to the AL UC
for review, and the timing of such submittals relative to the internal review
and approval process, also must be indicated, with the goal in mind to
achieve consistency. ..
Again, as already discussed, this is not an appropriate concept for a general plan. The City
complies with all State laws, including those that dictate the timing for projects.
The following responses apply to the itemized points 1 through lIon pages 3-6
V. !tern 1. Page 3-4
Applicabilitv of State Law Section
The City is subject to and acknowledges it will comply with State law, including the Public
Utilities Code Section 21676 as clearly stated on page 17 of the AEE. The State Law
section was added to the AEE at the request of ALUC staff. You must agree that this
section is unnecessary to include in the document, since the City of Santa Ana is obligated
to comply with State law.
AEE Goals
Page 1, Paragraph 1 of the AEE states, "The Airport Environs Element of the City of Santa
Ana General Plan serves as the long-range policy guide to safeguard the general welfare of
the inhabitants within the City of Santa Ana in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport (JW A).
Additionally, it provides guidance for the purpose of ensuring navigable airspace is not
impacted by future development in the City." This is the stated goal of the element. I am
unclear as to how this paragraph is so deficient that it is inconsistent with the AELUP.
There is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent
with the AELUP in this regard.
75C-203
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 9 of20
Ne,?ative Declaration
Your letter repeatedly references a consistency requirement with the Negative Declaration.
There is no legal requirement that the Negative Declaration language be identical to the
general plan. Are you suggesting the Negative Declaration should be changed to mirror the
General Plan language? As you well know, the public comment period for the Negative
Declaration has elapsed. We did receive comments from ALUC staff, and those comments
have been addressed. However, none of the comments contained within your letter were
contained in the ALUC's comments. As such, the City will not be further modifying the
Negative Declaration language. There is nothing within this section of your letter that
indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
General Plan Internal Consistencv
As stated above, case law holds that consistency requires "that a proposed project be
compatible with the objectives, polices, general land uses and programs specified in the
applicable plan. The courts have interpreted this provision as requiring that a project be 'in
agreement or harmony with' the terms of the applicable plan, not in rigid conformity with
every detail thereof." San Franciscans upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County
of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA 4th 656, 678. As such, it is unnecessary for each of the
sections of the general plan to repeat policies. Nor would such unnecessary repetitiveness
be required to achieve consistency with the AELUP. There is nothing within this section of
your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
VI. Item 2. Page 4
A. Paragraph 1
"In regard to question VIl D. on page 11 of the negative declaration, more
facts should be developed and a less conclusory discussion maintained. For
example, the AL UC has raised the concern that tall buildings in the
MacArthur Place/Hutton Center area are under relatively low general
aviation flight patterns and that approximately 22,000 fued-wing aircraft
typically fly over the proposed location of these residential high-rises on an
annual basis. The negative declaration should be revised to reflect this
concern, or should set forth evidence as to why this is not of concern to the
City and does not pose a 'safety hazard to people residing or working in the
City. ,,,
First, please see the above discussion on the Negative Declaration; which discussed that the
public comment period has closed. As such, the City will not be further modifying the
Negative Declaration language.
75C-204
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 10 of20
Second, "tall buildings'; are not the subject of this "project." As discussed above, the
"project" is the amendment of the City's General Plan. There is nothing within this section
r
of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
B. Paragraph 2. first sentence
"State and federal airport land use compatibility guidelines also
recommend that a strict height limitation be imposed that is supported by
substantial evidence to show that buildings beyond a certain height would
be an obstruction to navigation of aircraft around JwA".
There are several concerns within this sentence that need to be addressed. First, you have
unfortunately omitted the fact that the AELUP contains no such height restriction
requirement. Accordingly, the omission of such a height limitation in the AEE cannot be
the basis for inconsistency.
Second, there is no "substantial evidence to show that buildings beyond a certain height
would be an obstruction to navigation of aircraft around JW A" contained within the
AELUP, so once again this would not need to be inserted into the AEE to be consistent
with the AELUP. There is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the
AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
C. Paragraph 2. second and third sentence
"As you are aware, long-term members of the AL UC recall the Federal
Aviation Administration ("FAA ") clearing a building at Hutton Center that
ultimately interfered with the VHF Omni Range (VOR) navigational aid at
JWA. It is critical that this type ofzmintended result be avoided in the
future, based upon appropriate land use compatibility planning. "
The FAA cleared a building in Santa Ana that ultimately interfered with a navigational aid
at JW A. This comment should be appropriately addressed to the FAA since I am unclear
how the City can control the FAA's "clearing of a building." Also, it is my understanding
under state law that this scenario illustrates one goal of ALUC review, since the ALUC is
aware of this situation, I am certain that such an incident is unlikely to be repeated. There
is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with
the AELUP in this regard.
D. Paragraph 3
"Further, it appears that stronger language concerning the heights of
buildings in the Land Use Element is b€;ing replaced with weaker, more
subjective criteria. The previous language acknowledged that tall
structures within 3 miles of an airport that are 200 feet or higher above
75C-205
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 11 of20
ground level or runway level may have the potential to obstnlct air
navigation. It is important that the Land Use Element continue to contain
direct and objective criteria regarding height limitations. consistent with the
JWA AELUP.
There is no "direct and objective criteria regarding height limitations" contained within the:
AELUP. As such, the fact that the 1987 AEEl2 contained such language is irrelevant to the
determination of the present AEE consistency with the present AELUP. There is nothing
within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the
AELUP in this regard.
E. Noise Element and Avigation Easement
"The Noise Element of the General Plan should also reference avigation
easements and notification requirements as potential tools to address noise
issues, consistent with the JW A AEL UP. ..
As noted above, it is unnecessary to repeat concepts in each of the elements of the General
Plan. Please see page 4 of the Airport Environs Element where Avigation Easements are
identified as potential mitigation measures. There is nothing within this section of your
letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
VII. Page 5. Item 3
"I understand that Mr. John Leyerle, on staff at JWA, and the former
Manager of the Access and Noise Office, has previously provided
suggestions that he believes would improve the noise contour section on
page 4 of the Airport Environs Element. Essentially. he suggests
referencing 65 dB CNEL and above. ..
This is the only item that was previously mentioned to the City. In a telephone
conversation with Mr. Leyerle, we discussed that this was merely the title of the section.
Mr. Leyerle at the time said it was not a big issue for ALUC staff. However, if this
represents the difference between a finding of consistency versus inconsistency, the City
would be willing to change the title. Although I am sure you will agree that, even without
the change, the AEE would be consistent considering that the map this section references is
in fact the AELUP map. Please let me know if this has changed to become a major issue
for the ALUC and is required for the City to become a "consistent" agency.
12 Recall that ALUC has declared the 1987 AEE to be inconsistent with the AELUP.
75C-206
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 12 of20
Pa~e 5. Item 3. Third Sentence
"He also suggests that buildings be required to be designed to be sufficiently
indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on exterior living
areas."
We questioned ALUC staff as to the meaning of this comment. The ALUC staff has
previously admitted that it is confusing and they have been unable to explain the rationale
for including it.
I do not understand how making residential units, which by their nature are indoor oriented,
"sufficiently indoor oriented" willstop noise impingements on the exterior of the building.
The indoor sound attenuation measures are already discussed in the AEE and cannot
diminish the actual noise on the exterior of the building.
VIII. Pa!?:e 5. Item 4
A. Paragraph 1
"On page 11 of the Airport Environs Element. the City quotes language
from the AEL UP inserting its name in the place of the AL UC as to
recognizing the FAA as the single authority. However, this language is
taken out of context in that it does not utilize the additional language from
the AEL UP (presently on pages 13 and 18). which has been a part of the
Plan since at least as far back as 1983, invoking the right to utilize criteria
for protecting air traffic patterns which may differ from Federal Aviation
Regulation ("FAR ") Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare or air
safety surface sufficiently to justify such an action. The General Plan must
be revised to achieve consistency with the JWA AELUP. This criteria will
essentially provide the City Council with the flexibility to invoke such a
public health, welfare and safety standard if the mere numbers so not tell
the full story. "
You are correct that the language in the City's AEE "quotes language from the AELUP."
Your concerns about ALUC's power have been addressed by the inclusion, at the ALUC
staffs request, of the State law section in the AEE. The AEE on page 17 states 'The City
of Santa Ana will comply with and administer all requirements established by state law and
the Public Utilities Code." The ALUC is granted under Section 21674 the power and duty
"[t]o coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the
orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public
health, safety and welfare." It is unnecessary in a city's general plan to list each of the
powers and duties provided to the ALUC under state law. We believe that adding this
superfluous reference in the General Plan is unnecessary.
75C-207
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 13 of20
Additionally, it is not essential "to provide the City Council with the flexibility to invoke
such a public health, welfare and safety standard if the mere numbers do not tell the full
story." The City is fully empowered under its police powers to protect the public health,
safety and welfare. As such, if "sufficient evidence" was brought forward, either entity,
ALUC or the City, is entitled to act against a project based upon the evidence provided.
Accordingly, there is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE
is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
B. Paragraph 1. Second Sentence
". . . the additional language from the AEL UP (presently on pages 13 and
18), which has been a part of the Plan since at least as far back as 1983,
invoking the right to utilize criteria for protecting air traffic patterns which
may differ from Federal Aviation Regulation ("FAR '') Part 77, should
evidence of health, welfare or air safety surface sufficiently to justify such
an action. "
While this statement is not relevant to whether the AEE is consistent with the present
AELUP, you should be aware that this statement is misleading. Prior versions of the
AELUP stated, "[t]he Commission my consider the adoption of criteria. . ." See AELUP
(amended November 16, 1995) Section 2.2.2. The AELUP allowing the ALUC to adopt
criteria is substantially different than "utilizing criteria." The former involves an actual
action by the ALUC to "adopt" criteria, while the later, "utilize" criteria, permits the ALUC
to use any standard it chooses for a given project. As such, the language in the current
AELUP is a less stringent standard than found in previous versions of the AELUP.
B. Para~aph 2
"In addition, the Airport Environs Element should require all development
proposals that exceed in height the imaginary surfaces as defined by the
FAA in FAR Part 77, as well as all development proposals that are
described in Section 2.1.6 of the AEL UP on pages 15 and 16, to be sent to
the AL UC for a consistency determination. "
The ALUC cannot require the submittal of all development proposals that exceed the
height of the imaginary surfaces or all development proposals that are described in Section
2.1.6 of the AELUP in order to for the AEE to be consistent with the AELUP. This
exceeds the authority granted to ALUC under state law.
The ALUC is a public agency oflimited power, and must restrain itself to exercise only
those powers expressly granted to it by and only in furtherance of the statute's purpose.
See Opinion of Bill Lockyer, 2004 DJDAR 90~ 1 (July 22, 2004). Once the City is
consistent with the ALEUP, the City is only obligated under state law to submit for ALUC
review of consistency, "amendments of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or
75C-208
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16,2004
Page 14 of20
approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundaries
established by ALUC." See, PUC Section 21676. Further, Section 2l676.5(b) states
"Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled
the commission pursuant to subdivision (a) the proposed action of the local agency shall
not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency
agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission."
This voluntary submittal of projects other than what is legally required by Section 21676 is
also discussed within the AELUP at section 4.6. "A project other that those described
above [General Plan and Specific Plans, Amendments to General Plans and Specific Plans,
Zoning Ordinances and Building Regulations and Airport Master Plans], including but not
limited to use permits and site plans, may be submitted voluntarily to the Commission for a
recommendation prior to its adoption." As such, if the ALUC is requiring the submittal of
projects not legally required under state law in order for the AEE to be "consistent" then
the City's consent would not be "voluntary." Merriam-Webster defines voluntary as "1:
proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent 2: unconstrained by
interference. "
The AELUP correctly complies with the authority granted to ALUC under state law, while
your request exceeds the authority of not only state law but the actuallanguage of the
AELUP. There is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is
inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
IX. Page 5, Item 4, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 &
Page 5, Item 5
"The Airport Environs Element should also incorporate some of the
language set forth in the general land use policies on pages 20 and 21 of the
AEL UP. "
"On page 17 of the Airport Environs Element only one sentence is devoted
to safety, basically implying that since there are no accident potential zones
("APZs oJ within Santa Ana there is no safety issue. This, of course, is not
true and is not consistent with the safety policies set forth in the JWA
AELUP. The City should incorporate into its General Plan the safety
criteria provided in the AELUP, in Section 3.2.1, on pages 20 and 21."
First the "safety policies" you reference are actually "land use policies" within the AELUP.
According to the AELUP, "JW A Runway Protection Zones are shown in Appendix D on
the map entitled John Wayne Airport Impact Zones. The Commission has not adopted
Accident Potential Zones for this airport because none could be justified by the available
data." AELUP page 18. This statement is supported by the omission ofa current Accident
History, unless the Accident History 1969-1978 is the most current Accident History data.
75C-209
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 15 of20
Moreover, the AEE does discuss each of the AELUP's "land use policies." See Goal 1
(AEE Page 17) which states "Protect sensitive land. uses from airport related noise
impacts", Goal 2 (AEE Page 17) which states "Protect the safety of the general public from ·
aircraft hazards" and the Background Section (AEE Page 1) which states in part "ensuring
navigable airspace is not impacted by future development in the City. Since these land use:
policies are already contained within the AEE, there is nothing within this section of your '
letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
X. Page 5, Item 6
"Policy 1.2 on page 19 should also advocate that noise sensitive land uses
(i.e. (sic], residential, schools, parks, etc.) not be placed near existingjIight
paths, consistent with the AELUP policies regarding the location of noise
sensitive land uses in noise impact areas.
The AELUP states on page 23 that "Noise-sensitive institutional uses such as schools,
churches, hospitals, libraries, and other noise-sensitive uses may also be inconsistent in this
zone." The AEE states "Noise sensitive institutional uses such as schools, churches,
hospitals, libraries, and other noise-sensitive land uses may also be inconsistent in this zone
unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently mitigated to address
present and projected noise exposure." AEE page 4-5. The language in the AEE is already
stronger than required by the AELUP. Also, the AELUP does not require that these uses
be prohibited near existing flight paths. As such, there is nothing within this section of
your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
XI. Page 6, Item 7
"The reference to "general public' in Goal 2 likely includes persons
working in the affected commercial projects and living in the residential
projects, but Goal 2 should be revised to specifically define the "general
public. ..
The well-established principle of statutory construction provides that if a term is undefined,
it must have common everyday meaning. Additionally, I note that the AELUP does not
define "general public" or many other terms used in the document because they have
common everyday meanings. As such it is unnecessary for the AEE to define "general
public." There is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is
inconsistent with the AELUP in this regard.
XII. Page 6, Item 8
"Policy 2.1 should also reference cons~!tation with the AL Uc. "
75C-210
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 16 of20
The AELUP does not require, nor does state law require that the City consult with JW A
regarding the height of buildings. Federal law does however require such consultation with
I
the FAA. Accordingly, the omission of ALUC review from City policy does not create an
"inconsistency. "
XIII. Page 6. Item 9
"Policy 2.3 should also reference compliance with the JW A AEL UP. ..
The AEE already indicates that the City will comply with State law, which includes
consistency with the AELUP. The AEE has addressed this concern and
since this concept is evident in the AEE, the omission of ALUC from this policy does not
create an "inconsistency." The City will of course comply with state law, as well as FAR
Part 77, and will add "state law" to Policy 2.3 if ALUC determines it is required to achieve
"consistency. "
XIV. Page 6. Item 10
"A Policy 2.4 should acknowledge the stated goals to ensure that people
and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents
and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable
airspace. ..
As discussed above, the AELUP does not identify any locations where aircraft accidents
are a concern. Since the AELUP does not contain such information, this Policy does not
need to be inserted to be consistent with the AELUP. As such, there is nothing within this
section of your letter that indicates how the AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP.
The stated goal of the element is "[t]he Airport Environs Element of the City of Santa Ana
General Plan serves as the long-range policy guide to safeguard the general welfare of the
inhabitants within the City of Santa Ana in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport (JW A).
Additionally, it provides guidance for the purpose of ensuring navigable airspace is not
impacted by future development in the City." Page 1, Paragraph 1 of the AEE (emphasis
added). As such, there is nothing within this section of your letter that indicates how the
AEE is inconsistent with the AELUP.
XV. Page 6. Item 11
"Policy 3.4 on page 20 should include consultation with the ALUC
consistent with Public Utilities Code 921670, et seq. and Title 21 California
Code of Regulations 93534 (regarding referral to ALUC of heliport
application). ..
75C-211
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16,2004
Page 17 of20
The ALUC's role in Heliports is discussed on page 17 of the AEE. It is unnecessary to
repeat the same concepts on every page of the AEE. While this concept is already evident
in the AEE, and the omission of ALUC from this policy does not create an "inconsistency,
" the City will include ALUC in Policy 3.4 if ALUC determines it is required to achieve
"consistency" .
XVI. STAFF REPORT dated AU2ust 19,2004
Since the ALUC staff report contains additional issues that were not in your letter and it
omits your issues,13 I can only presume these are yet another set of corrections to the AEE.
A. 65 dB (Ai CNEL AND ABOVE NOISE CONTOUR
First, as to the dB(A) CNEL, we received an e-mail from Mr. Brady dated May 12,2004
which forwarded an e-mail from Mr. Leyerle dated May 7,2004. In this e-mail Mr.
Leyerle states that CNEL includes the (A) and is thought to be redundant, and I quote
"[a]dding the 'A' is thought to be redundant, something like ordering a beverage at
Starbucks and asking for a 'Decaf, Grande, non-fat latte, coffee. ", Just as it is not illegal to
order the coffee that way, it is not illegal for the City to choose to include the (A).
Moreover, please note that, in a conversation with Mr. Trevino, Mr. Vince Mestre, the
ALUC's noise consultant, informed that dB(A) CNEL was the technically proper reference.
Since many of the people who would be helped by the General Plan are not noise experts,
the (A) is simply more information to assist the "general public" in understanding the AEE.
Since, at most, the (A) is a mere redundancy and not a different noise standard, I am at a
loss to understand how this would make the AEE inconsistent with the AELUP. That
being said, if this is one of those major sticking points for the ALUC, the City would
consider amending the AEE to remove this notation.
B. Avigation Easement
First, the language now proposed to be deleted by the ALUC staff was added at its request.
Either version14 is consistent with the AELUP. The AELUP does not require avigation
easements. See Section 3.2.10. This section entitled "Avigation Easements" states that
the ALUC will consider an easement if the City so requests. "However, nothing in this
section shall be deemed to confer upon the Commission the legal jurisdiction or authority
to require, compel or mandate the dedication of an avigation easement as a condition of
consistency; and the lack of an avigation easement shall not constitute the basis for a
determination by the Commission that a project is inconsistent with the AELUP." As
such, the requirement of the City to include avigation easements in this section as a
\J Although., as stated above, I do not believe any of the .above needs to be included for the City's AEE to be
consistent with the AELUP. .
14 Either the May 13,2004 AEE or the redlined version of the AEE submitted at the July 19,2004 ALUC
special meeting.
75C-212
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 18 of20
condition of consistency is contrary to the language in the AELUP. Therefore, the AELUP
cannot request this language be added to the AEE for a determination of consistency.
The City strongly opposes requiring conditionsl5 that do not have "essential nexus." To
require conditions without regard to the impacts requiring mitigation could expose the City
to liability. When appropriate, the City will use avigation easements and sound attenuation!
to mitigate the noise exposure in the 65 dB(A) CNEL Noise Contour. Moreover, the AEE
states "residential units are deemed inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown that
such units are sufficiently mitigated to address present and project noise exposure."
For a detailed discussion of the City's concerns please look in the Handbook, Chapter 3
which provides the same cautions to ALUCs regarding Avigation Easements and "takings."
C. "All residential units are to be su(ficientlv indoor oriented so as to preclude
noise impingement on exterior areas. "
We questioned the meaning of this comment. The ALUC staff has previously admitted that
it is confusing and they have been unable to explain the rationale for including it.
I do not understand how making residential units, which by their nature are indoor oriented,
"sufficiently indoor oriented" will stop noise impingements on the exterior of the building.
The indoor sound attenuation measures are already discussed in the AEE and cannot
diminish the actual noise on the exterior of the building.
D. "(Wlhich defines indoor L(ea) DB(A) sound level limits for tvpical uses
during a time period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. or other appropriate.
approved time period. ..
The AEE references the AELUP's chart on page 23 that contains this information. The
City referenced the AELUP rather than inserting it in the AEE because it uses a different
noise metric. We believe that use of hvo noise metrics to address the same issue would
confuse readers of the AEE. In fact, Mr. LeyerIe seemed to agree when we brought this to
his attention. He even offered that the City-proposed dB (A) CNEL metric is more
stringent. Further, the AELUP states and the Handbook requires measurement of sound
with the dB (A) CNEL standard. For clarity sake, the City chose to simply reference the
AELUP table. Since the AEE states "shall be consistent with the defined noise standards
(in the table presently shown on page twenty-three) of the AELUP. . .", the City's refusal to
include this superfluous language does not render the AEE inconsistent with the AELUP.
IS Such as an avigation easement.
75C-213
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 19 of20
E. Table .J.i
In AEE "Table 1" is struck through and replaced with "Table 2". As stated above, the City
will not include the table found on page 23 of the AELUP, as such, this is the first and only'
table in the AEE. Therefore, "Table I" is the appropriate designation of this table.
F. Heliport/Helistop
"ALUC review of proposed heliportlhelistop projects is initiated through
referral of the development permit application by the sponsor's or the local
agency!.s referral for a development permit."
The language ALUC staff struck from the AEE is verbatim from the AELUP for Heliports.
As such the inclusion of this language cannot be the basis for "inconsistency."
G. Land Use Element
"The Airport Land Use Commission e.f for Orange County will review for a
formal determination of Consistency with 'The Airport Environs Land Use
Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport.' and/ef a Federal Aviation
Administration determination will be is made prior to project approval
pursuant to applicable State law and Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77."
The added language is repetitive of State law, which is included in the Land Use Element
later in the sentence ("pursuant to applicable State law"). As stated above, it is unnecessary
to include the details of State law - the City must and does comply with State law. The
City is not legally obligated to refer projects, other than "amendments of a general plan or
specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation
within the planning boundaries established by ALUC." Section 21676 and see above
discussion under VIII. B. The changes noted are not necessary for the AEE to be
consistent with the AELUP.
H. Tvpographical Errors
Lastly, we note that the name of ALUC was incorrect in the Glossary and will make this
change. Similarly the typographical error on the Noise element "contours" will be '
changed.
75C-214
Mr. Jack W. Golden
September 16, 2004
Page 20 of20
XV. Conclusion
I believe this addresses all of the issues raised in your letter as well as the additional
corrections contained within the ALUC staff report.
The City entered this process in the good faith that the ALUC and its staff would fairly bue
strictly adhere to the AELUP and state law. Based upon the above, I am disheartened that
at every turn it appears that ALUC's staff has had no intention of "assisting" the City of
Santa Ana as required by Section 21674. These actions combined appear to be an effort to
frustrate the City's efforts to become a consistent agency by what seems an almost never-
ending process of groundless demands by the ALUC staff.
Very truly yours,
JOSEPH W. FLETCHER
CITY ATTORNEY
By:
cc: City Manager
Executive Director Planning and Building Agency
75C-215
Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No.
Western Pacific Regional OffiRECEIVE~2003-AWP-2870-0E
PO Box 92007-AWP-520 ~rior Study No.
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 2003-AWP-2869-0E
SEP 2 9 2003
Issued Date: 9/23/2003
CRP
SANTA ANA
FRANCO MOLA
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES
139 EAST ALTON AVE
SANTA ANA, CA 92707
** DETERMINATION OF NO BA.ZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure Type:
Location:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Heights:
Building
SANTA ANA, CA
33-42-2 NAD 83
117-51-51
250 feet above ground level (AGL)
287 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace
by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore,
pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the
structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition(s} is(are} met:
As a condition to this DetermmatioI:, t ;~"" st"!:'Ucture should be marked and/or
lighted in accordance with FAA Advise.:y Circ .1.r 70/7460-1 70/7460-1K,
Obstruction Marking and Li3~ting, red lights - Chapr8rs 4,5(Red},&12.
It ~s required that the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction
or Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is
abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction
(7460-2, Part I)
X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height
(7460-2, Part II)
As a result of this structure being critical to flight safety, it is required
that the FAA be kept appraised as to the status of the project. Failure to
respond to periodic FAA inquiries could invalidate this determination.
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and
occupants may be subjecte~ to noise from aircraft operating to and from the
airport.
This determination expires on 3/23/2005 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.
CUP 04-24/DA 04-3/TTM 04-5
SPR 04-6N A 04-11/Z0A 04-5
E'fflC J216
(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of
the Federal Communications commission (FCC) and an
application for a construction permit has been filed , as
required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this
determination. In such case, the determination expires on
the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of
construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PE:R!OD OF THIS DETERMINATION
MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
EXPIRATION DATE.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition
on or before 10/23/2003. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must
contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted in
triplicate to the Manager, Airspace Branch, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C. 20591.
This determination becomes final on 11/2/2003 unless a petition is timely filed.
In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of
the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which'
includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes
in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this
determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to
heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice
to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes,
derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure.
However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above.
Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires
separate notice to the FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and
efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor
of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of
any-Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and
proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating
under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all
existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical
fa~ilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when
combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study
disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect
on air navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA
during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter
can be found on the following page(s).
A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications
Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority.
Page 2
75C-217
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (310)725-6559.
On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to
Aeron' l d1 Stu y Number 2003-AWP-2870-0E
-~~
(DNH) 215023
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
p"op. 1
75C-218
Additional Information for ASN 2003-AWP-2870-0E
The proposed building of 250 foot Above Ground Level (AGL), 287 foot Above Mean
Sea Level (AMSL) located approximately 6,886 feet northwest of John Wayne.
Airport Runway 19R, exceeds Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Subpart
C, as follows:
77.23(a) (2) exceeds by 31, a height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is
higher exceeding 200 feet within 3 miles of the airport.
77.23{a) (5) exceeds by 81, a height exceeding a horizontal surface of 150 feet
above the airport field elevation (56ft AMSL) within a radius of 10,000 feet, as
defined by FAR 77.25(a) (2).
This proposal was not circularized because it is in an area of structures of
similar height.
P~ap. 4
75C-219
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2680
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COASTAL RIM
PROPERTIES, INC., AND GENEVA COMMONS, llC
THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ORDAINS AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. The City is authorized pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864
through 65869.5 to enter into development agreements with persons having legal or
equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing certainty for both City
and owner in the development process.
B. The City enters into this Development Agreement pursuant to the
provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies.
C. The Planning Commission has, following a duly noticed public hearing, on
November 22, 2004, recommended approval of this Development Agreement.
E. Entering into this Development Agreement would provide the City with
extraordinary and significant benefits that are of regional significance, relate to existing
deficiencies in public facilities, require the owner of Geneva Commons to contribute a
greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and represent
benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the development process.
F. The City Council has held a noticed public hearing on this Ordinance, and
has considered all testimony presented thereto.
G. The City Council has, on April 4, 2005, approved a mitigated negative
declaration in conjunction with this Project and adopted a mitigation monitoring plan.
SECTION 2: The Development Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is hereby approved, and the City Manager and Clerk of the
Council are authorized to execute it on behalf of the City. The Clerk of the City is hereby
authorized and directed to cause this Development Agreement to be recorded with the
County Recorder's Office.
SECTION 3: This ordinance shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance
No. NS-2681 and Resolution No. 2005-040 become effective. If said ordinance and
resolution are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not go into effect for any reason, then this
ordinance shall be null and void and have no further force and effect.
75C-220
Ordinance No. NS-
Page 1
SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that
it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this
day of
,2005
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Benjamin Kaufman
Chief Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
Ordinance No. NS-
Page 2
75C-221
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the
attached Ordinance No. NS-2680 to be the original ordinance adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on , and that said ordinance was
published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75C-222
Ordinance No. NS-
Page 3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Aha, California 92702
FREE RECORDING
GOVERNMENT CODE ~ 6103
RESTATED AND NOVATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
by and between
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
and
GENEVA COMMONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Dated: March 16, 2005
EXHIBIT 1
75C-223
RESTA TED AND NOVATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND
GENEVA COMMONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
This RESTATED AND NOVATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
("Agreement") is entered into between THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and
municipal corporation duly authorized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California
(referred to herein as "City") on the one hand, and COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION and GENEVA COMMONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (collectively referred to herein as "Owner" or "Property
Owner") on the other hand.
1. RECIT ALS. The Agreement is entered into with reference to the following
facts:
1.1 Purpose. (1) The purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the
development of a small portion of the real property which was the subject of a Development
Agreement entered into on January 4, 1988 and recorded as Document 88-260709 in the Office
of the Recorder of the County of Orange (hereafter the "Original Agreement"). The Original
Agreement was subsequently amended on or about June 4, 2001, by Document No.
20010429519 the Office of the Recorder of the County of Orange. The real property which was
the subject of the Original Agreement is zoned by the City as Specific Zoning District No. 43
("SD-43).
(2) A portion of the real property covered by the Original Agreement
was subsequently acquired by Owner, who has applied to the City to amend SD-43 and have
approved a new tentative map.
(3) The City and Owner agree that the changes Owner seeks in the
Original Agreement substantiate the need to replace the Original Agreement with the instant
Development Agreement, rendering the Original Agreement, and any of its amendments, null
and void as applied to Owner's Property (as the word "Property" is defined in section 2.3
herein).
(4) As more particularly set forth in section 2.4 of this Agreement,
Owner has proposed constructing at the northeast comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Imperial
Promenade an approximately 278-unit condominium project consisting of an 18-residentiallevel
high rise project and an eight-story building, together with approximately 13,000 square feet of
ancillary retail, of which no more than 3,000 square feet may be devoted to "fast food" or "take
out" restaurants.
1.2 Code Authorization. City is authorized pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to enter into Development Agreements with persons having
legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of establishing certainty for both City
and Owner in the development process. City enters into the Agreement pursuant to the
provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies. The parties acknowledge:
75C-224
(1)
the time of development.
This Agreement is intended to assure adequate public facilities at
(2) This Agreement is intended to assure development in accordance
with City's General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and Specific Development District No. 43.
(3) This Agreement will permit achievement of goals and objectives as
reflected in the City's General Plan, all applicable Specific Plans and Specific Development
District No. 43.
(4) Owner is required by existing City regulations to provide
mitigation for certain impacts and pay certain regulatory fees as conditions of approvals through
the regulatory process.
(5) This Agreement will allow City to realize extraordinary and
significant public infrastructure facilities and other supplemental benefits in addition to those
available through the existing regulatory process.
(6) Many of the extraordinary and significant benefits identified as
consideration to City for entering into this Agreement are of regional significance, relate to
existing deficiencies in public facilities, require Owner to contribute a greater percentage of
benefits than would otherwise be required, and represent benefits which would not otherwise be
required as part of the development process.
1.3 Owner. Owner represents and warrants that it has a legal or equitable
interest in the real property located in City of Santa Ana, California, legally described on Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein, and graphically described on Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated herein. The Property is currently vacant.
1.4 Interest of Owner. Owner hereby represents that it has an equitable and
legal interest in the Property. Owner further hereby represents that it has approved this
Agreement and is authorized to enter into this Agreement.
1.5 Planning Commission - Council Hearings. On November 22,2004, the
Planning Commission of the City ("Planning Commission"), after giving notice pursuant to
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, held a public hearing to consider the Owner's
application for this Agreement. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council of
City that it execute this Agreement. On April 4, 2005, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
("Council"), after providing notice as required by law, held a public hearing to consider the
Owner's application for this Agreement.
1.6 Council Findings. The Council finds that this Agreement is consistent
2
75C-225
with the General Plan, applicable Specific Planes) as well as all other applicable ordinances,
plans, policies and regulations of the City.
NS-
thereafter.
1.7 City Ordinance. On April 18,2005, the Council adopted Ordinance No.
approving this Agreement. The ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days
2.
DEFINITIONS. In the Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
2.1 "Final Design" means the final design documents for work of public art,
which is set forth in greater detail in paragraph 5.8 of this Agreement.
2.2 "Property Owner" or "Owner" means collectively Coastal Rim
Properties, Inc., a California Corporation, and Geneva Commons, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, being the person, persons, or entity having a legal or equitable interest in the
Property, and includes Coastal Rim Properties, Inc.'s successors in interest.
2.3 "Property" is the real property described in Exhibit A and referred to in
Exhibit B.
2.4 "Project" is the development of the Property as generally set forth in
Environmental Review No. 2002-215, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 (County Map No. 16556),
Conditional Use Permit 2004-02, Variance No. 2004-11, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-
05 (amending SD-43), and Site Plan Review No. 2004-06.
2.5 Public Art Plan means the conceptual Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The parties recognize that the Plan does not set forth certain elements of the Public Art to be
installed in conjunction with this Project, including the location of the Public Art, and is
therefore subject to refinement prior to the time of installation, by agreement of the Owner and
the City's Executive Director of Planning and Building.
3. EXHIBITS. The following documents referred to in the Agreement are attached
to this Agreement and are identified as follows:
3
75C-226
Exhibit
Designation
Description
Referred to
in Section
A
Property Legal Description
1.2
B
Property Graphical Description (Site Plan)
1.2
C
Public Art Plan
2.5
D
Cooperative Agreement for Off-Site Improvements 5.1.1
E
Remaining Offsite Mitigation Measures
5.1.2
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
4.1 Property Subject to the Agreement. Until released pursuant to the
provisions of Section 8.3 below, no property shall be released from this Agreement until
Property Owner has fully performed its obligations arising out of the Agreement.
4.2 Duration of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall for ten (10)
years; provided, however that the Owner may request one two-year extension from the Executive
Director of the Planning and Building Agency, which request shall not be unreasonably denied.
4.3 Assignment. Owner shall have the right to transfer or assign the Property,
in whole or in part, to any person, entity (public or private), partnership, joint venture, firm or
corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that except as
provided in section 4.3.1 of this Agreement, the rights of Owner under this Agreement may not
be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the Council is first obtained and any
transfer or assignment of the rights under this Agreement shall include in writing the assumption
of the duties, obligations, and liabilities arising from this Agreement if the City grants written
consent to transfer the rights. Nor shall the rights of the Owner hereunder be subject to
assignment by attachment, execution, or proceedings under any provision of the Bankruptcy Act,
and any such assignment or transfer shall be wholly void and of no force and effect unless such
written consent thereto be obtained from the Council. Such transfer or assignment shall not
relieve Owner of any duty, obligation or liability to City without the consent of the City.
During the term of this Agreement, any approved assignee or transferee of the
rights under this Agreement shall observe and perform all of the duties and obligations of Owner
contained in this Agreement as such duties and obligations pertain to the portion of the Property
transferred or assigned. Any and all approved successors and assignees of Owner shall have all
of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of Owner under this Agreement. If
the Property is subdivided, any subdivided parcel may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated,
assigned, or transferred to persons for development by them in accordance with the provisions of
4
75C-227
this Agreement. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights of Owner under this Agreement, the
obligations of Owner and the transferee or assignee shall be joint and several.
4.3.1 Permitted Assignments. The prohibition against transfer of ownership of
the Property as defined in section 4.3 above shall not apply to, and the City hereby consents to,
the following:
a. Associations, including .limited partnerships, limited liability
companies, or joint ventures with other entities for the purpose of performing Owner's
obligations under this Agreement, provided Owner retains sole operational and managerial
control.
b. Easements or temporary permits to facilitate development of the
Property .
c. Deeds of trust or other financing documents executed for the
purpose of securing loans to Owner made to finance the development of the Property, and
transfers to any person or entity pursuant to a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure of such
deed of trust or other, similar, financing documents and any subsequent transfer by any such
person or entity.
4.4 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be
amended from time to time or cancelled by the mutual consent of the parties, but only in the
same manner as its adoption by an ordinance as set forth in Government Code Section 65868.
The term "Agreement" or "Development Agreement" as used herein shall include any
amendment properly approved and executed.
4.5 Enforcement. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 65865.4, this
Agreement is enforceable by any party to the Agreement in any manner provided by law. The
remedies provided in Section 8.4 of this Agreement shall not include, and City shall not be liable
for, any action in damages or any costs or attorney's fees resulting from any dispute,
controversy, action or inaction, or any legal proceeding arising out of this Agreement except as
may be provided in Section 6.3(5) of this Agreement.
4.6 Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its
officers, agents, employees, consultants, special counsel, and representatives harmless from
liability: (1) for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief arising out of
claims for personal injury, including health, and claims for property damage, which may arise
from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or their contractors, subcontractors,
agents, employees, or other persons acting on their behalf which relates to the Project; and (2)
from any claim that damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief is due by
reason of the terms of or effects arising from this Agreement This hold harmless Agreement
applies to all claims for damages, just compensation, restitution, judicial or equitable relief
5
75C-228
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the events referred to in this paragraph or
due by reason of the terms of, or effects, arising from this Agreement or any approval or
certification by the City relating to the Project, regardless of whether or not the City prepared,
supplied or approved this Agreement, plans or specifications, or both, for the Project. The
Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and pay all costs for the defense of
the City, including fees and costs for special counsel to be selected by the City, regarding any
action by a third party challenging the validity of this Agreement or any approval or certification
by the City relating to the Project, or asserting that damages, just compensation, restitution,
judicial or equitable relief is due to personal or property rights by reason of the terms of, or
effects arising from this Agreement. City may make all reasonable decisions with respect to its
representation in any legal proceeding.
4.7 Binding Effect of Agreement. To the extent not othelWise provided in
Section 4.3 of this Agreement, the burdens of the Agreement bind, and the benefits of the
Agreement inure, to the parties' successors in interest.
4.8 Relationship of the Parties. The contractual relationship between City
and Owner arising out of the Agreement is one of independent contractor and not agency. This
Agreement does not create any third party beneficiary rights.
4.9 Notices. Any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication
pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be properly given if
delivered in person or mailed by first class or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by
telefacsimile or other telegraphic communication in the manner provided in this Section, to the
following persons:
If to City, to:
City Manager
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-31
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
telefacsimile (714) 647-6954
and,
City Attorney
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza M-29
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
telefacsimile (714) 647-6515
6
75C-229
Ifto Owner, to:
Coastal Rim Properties, Inc.
Geneva Commons, LLC
139 East Alton Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92707
Attention: Franco Mola
telefacsimile: (714) 708-0873
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party.
Thereafter, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be addressed and
transmitted to the new address. If sent by mail, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other
communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been
deposited in the United States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and
addressed as set forth above. If sent by telefacsimile, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or
other communication shall be effective or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours
after the time set forth on the transmission report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine,
addressed as set forth above. For purposes of calculating these time frames, weekends, federal,
state, County, or city holidays shall be excluded.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
5.1 Existing Rules, Regulations and Policies. The rules, regulations and
official policies governing the permitted use(s) of the Property, with respect to and only with
respect to the permitted use(s) density, height, size of structures and intensity of use of the
Property, shall be those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the Property as of the
effective date of this Agreement.
5.1.1 Cooperative Agreement for Off-Site Improvements. The Owner and
the City, together with other parties, have concurrently executed a Cooperative Agreement for
Off-Site Improvements, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and
incorporated herein by this reference. Owner agrees to comply in all respects with its obligations
under said Agreement, and agrees and acknowledges that a material breach of said agreement
shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.
7
75C-230
5.1.2 Remaining Offsite Mitigation Measures. The additional offsite
mitigation measures, beyond those set forth in the agreement referenced in section 5.1.1 of this
Agreement, which must be constructed by Owner are as set forth in Exhibit E to this Agreement.
All funds or costs for offsite mitigation measures required pursuant to the approvals set forth in
section 2.4 of this Agreement shall be paid the earlier of (1) the time called for in the said
approvals, or (2) no later than recordation of the final subdivision map for the Project, whichever
comes first.
5.2 Exclusion from Existing Rules, Regulations and Policies.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65866, and Pardee Construction Co. v.
City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 465,208 Ca1.Rptr. 228, 690 P.2d 701, City retains the right
to enact police power regulations on matters not covered by section 5.1 of this Agreement,
including without limitation:
a. Regulation of the rate and amount of growth is not abrogated by the City,
in that the parties agree and acknowledge that the City hereby retains the police power to provide
for change in regulations, ordinances, policies, and plans relating to moratoria, building permit
allocations, timing, and sequencing of development and the financing and provision of adequate
public facilities at the time of development.
b. Municipal laws and regulations which do not interfere with Owner's vested
rights to develop and use the Property in accordance with section 5.1 of this Agreement Owner and
its successors and assigns and all persons and entities in occupation of any portion of the Property
shall comply with such non-conflicting laws and regulations as may from time to time be enacted or
amended hereafter. Specifically, but without limitation on the foregoing, such non-conflicting laws
and regulations include the following:
(1) Taxes, assessments, fees and charges, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this Development Agreement;
(2) Building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar codes based upon
uniform codes incorporated by reference into the Santa Ana Municipal Code;
(3) Laws, including zoning code provisions, which regulate the manner
in which business activities may be conducted or which prohibit any particular type of
business activity on a city-wide basis; and
(4) Procedural rules of general City-wide application.
c. In recognition of the need for City services, including but not limited to
police, fire and park, to meet the demand generated by new, cumulative residential development in
the City, District, Owner will not object to participation in a community facilities district, assessment
8
75C-231
district, or other similar funding mechanism, to provide funds for such services, should any such a
mechanism be established.
d. No vested rights as to any requirements in this section either as to existing
or future regulations, ordinances, policies, and plans are hereby conferred.
5.3 Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. The design
and construction standards and specifications for all Project construction, including without
limitation the facilities set forth in the Public Art Plan, shall be subject to applicable design
standards and guidelines in effect at the time that any development approval shall be sought for
the Project or any unit or structure contained within the Project.
5.4 FAA Approval. Owner shall obtain and maintain, during the term ofthe
agreement, any and all necessary approvals from the FAA for the Project. Should such
approvals lapse, and not be reinstated or reapproved prior to the issuance of the first building
permit, the City shall have the right to terminate the agreement.
5.4. I. Avigation Easement. The Owner shall, prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the Project, execute an avigation easement in a form approved by the City
Attorney, which shall be recorded with the Recorder of the County of Orange. The avigation
easement shall prohibit any and all claims, actions or lawsuits of any kind or type for nuisance or
interference with use and enjoyment of the underlying Property or the Project including but not
limited to noise, sound, vibration, fumes, fuel particles, dust, discomfort or other environmental
effects incident to aircraft operations as well as any inconvenience or annoyances caused by the
operations of the John Wayne Airport (SNA). The avigation easement shall grant the right to
enter or penetrate into or transmit through the airspace above, on or in the vicinity of the
Property for the unobstructed use, passage or operation of all types of aircraft and the right to
create or generate all things and consequences to the Property that may be, or may be alleged to
be, incident to or resulting from the use of said Airspace and any and all related aircraft and
airport operation. The City shall be the benefited party in the avigation easement, but said
easement shall be assignable by the City to a third party, including but not limited to John
Wayne Airport (SNA), without consent of Owner.
5.4.2. Limit on Fast Food and Take Out Restaurants. At no time shall the
Owner permit more than 3,000 square feet of the retail space in the Project to be devoted to "fast
food" and "take out" restaurants. For purposes of this Agreement, a restaurant shall not be
deemed to be a "fast food" or "take out" restaurant if it provide sit-down dining areas and
exclusive table service for ordering and delivering meals and beverages, and take out service
ancillary to such services.
5.5 Future Discretionary Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent the
City, when considering requests for discretionary approvals not covered by Section 5.1 of this
Agreement subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement, from applying new rules,
9
75C-232
regulations, and policies which are applicable to the Property, including but not limited to,
changes in the general plans, specific plans, zoning, subdivision or building regulations, nor shall
this Agreement prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent
applications for land use entitlements based on such existing or new rules, regulations, and/or
policies; provided however, that such new rules, regulations, and official policies are of general
application to all development within the City and are not imposed solely with respect to the
subject property. In addition, this Agreement shall not prevent the City from exercising its
police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This police power,
exercised in accordance with Section 5.2 of this Agreement, is paramount to any rights or
obligations created or existing between the parties.
5.6 Processing Fees. All fees and charges intended to cover City costs
associated with processing development of the Property, including but not limited to fees and
charges for applications, processing, inspections, plan review, plan processing, and/or
environmental review, which are existing or may be revised or adopted during the term ofthis
Agreement, shall apply to the development of the Property.
5.7 Amendments or Additions to Citywide Fee Programs. This Agreement
shall not preclude the inclusion of and changes to fee programs, taxes whether special or general,
or assessments (hereafter collectively referred to as "fees") adopted by the City after the
effective date of this Agreement, which shall be applicable to the Project or the Property
provided that they (1) are standard fees applicable to all development in the City (although actual
fee rates may vary within the City where bona fide Citywide fee zones have been established),
(2) are not applicable primarily or only to this Project, or (3) are not imposed to either (a)
mitigate, offset or compensate for Project impacts which were analyzed in the negative
declaration prepared for the Project, or (b) duplicate any project design features conditions of
approval, Agreements, or mitigation measures contained in the Development Plan or this
Agreement.
5.8 Development, Construction and Completion of Work of Public Art.
In consideration for the extraordinary and significant benefits set forth in this Section, the Owner
has been legally vested under paragraph 5.1 with regard to the permitted uses of land, density,
and intensity of use, Owner shall include within the Project at a prime location visible to the
public, a single or grouped permanent work of public art (the "Public Art"). The Public Art
shall conform in all respects to Exhibit C of this Agreement.
10
75C-233
Facilities specified in section 5.8.1 below must be designed and/or constructed
prior to the triggering event. In the event that Owner fails to meet either of the triggering events
set forth in section 5.8.1., below, Owner shall pay the City an amount equivalent to one-half of
one percent (0.5%) of the estimated value of its Project, as conclusively specified by the
Executive Director of the City's Planning and Building Agency, to be used by the City to acquire
other public art for other locations within the City, in which case, Owner will not be considered
in default under this Agreement.
5.8.1 Work of Public Art.
Items to Be Complete
Triggering Event (R g, New Use or New Area)
Prior to issuance of first Building Permit or five
(5) years from the effective date of this
Agreement, whichever comes first.
1. Submit Final Design of Public Art.
Final design must conform to Public Art
Plan.
2. Install Public Art.
Prior to City's issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for any building or structure, or the
expiration of the term of this Agreement,
whichever comes first.
With respect to the Final Design, Owner shall complete all construction and
development, shall submit all plans, drawings, and other documents, and perform all of its
obligations under this Agreement within the times specified above. During periods of
construction of the work of public art encompassed in the Public Art Plan, Owner shall submit to
the City a written report of the progress of the construction when and as reasonably requested by
the City. The report shall be in such form and detail as may be reasonably required by the City,
and shall include a reasonable number of construction photographs (if requested) taken from the
last report by Owner. Development scheduling or date or times of performance may be subject
to revision from time to time if first mutually agreed to in writing. Such revisions do not
constitute amendments requiring further notice and public hearing.
5.8.2. Inclusionary Housing Fee. Owner shall pay to the City the sum of
$3,000.00 per residential unit as a condition of issuance of each building permit. This fee shall
be used by the City for planning (including but not limited to preparation of one or more
elements of its general plan or for zoning amendments), conceptual design, final design, bid
preparation, award of bid, property appraisal, property acquisition, relocation, lost goodwill,
and/or construction of new or substantially rehabilitated existing affordable housing in the City.
Alternatively, Owner may at any time cease making such payments if it enters into an agreement
with the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana to either (i) newly
construct or rehabilitate and sell or lease, with affordability covenants as required by State law,
42 inclusionary housing units (that being 15% of the housing units proposed for the Project as
11
75C-234
provided by Health & Safety Code section 33413(b)(2)(A)), and/or (b) provide for up to sixty
percent (60%) of these inclusionary units to moderate income residents at its Project, consistent
with Health & Safety Code section 33413(b)(2).
5.8.3 No Redevelopment Subsidy. The Owner shall not be entitled to request
or accept any agreement with the Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency for economic,
debt service payments, or other assistance for the development of the Project. Failure to comply
with this provision shall be deemed in and of itself to constitute a failure to in good faith comply
with terms or conditions of this Agreement pursuant to the terms of Government Code section
65865.1.
5.8.4. In-Lieu Park Development Fee. The Owner shall pay an in-lieu park
development fee amount equivalent to the Park Dedication requirement referenced in the site
plan review letter for Site Plan Review No. 2004-06. The fee shall be assessed at the value of
$35.50 per square foot of area to be dedicated pursuant to the standard established by section
34-204 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, as specified in said City's site plan review
letter; provided, however that the fee may be increased yearly beginning twelve months
following the effective date of this agreement, by the average rate of increase in land costs in the
City of Santa Ana, as that increase is established by the "Construction Cost Index-Los Angeles,"
published by Engineering News-Record, or substitute index chosen by the Executive Director of
Planning and Building should that Index be discontinued. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance
of each building permit. The City shall use said fees for new parkland, capital improvements at
existing parks, and deferred maintenance at existing parks (up to a maximum of fifty percent of
amount of the fee), and shall be utilized by the City in the Quadrant of the City (as set forth in
the City's Park A&D Fee program) in which the Project is located. Ifnot used or appropriated
this fee shall be returned to Developer, consistent with the provisions of (and subject to the
exceptions contained within) the California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code S 66000 et
seq.
5.8.5 Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC&R's) must be provided and approved by the Planning and Building Agency's
Executive Director for the project prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Such CC&R's
must contain at a minimum, the following:
(1) No more than four residents per unit, except that for three-bedroom
units, there shall be no more than five residents per unit.
(2) To the extent permitted by law, all residential and live-work units
shall remain owner occupied and shall not allow rental of the entire unit.
(3) No home occupancy shall be permitted in a unit, except III
accordance with section 41-192 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
12
75C-235
(4) Assignment of repair of perimeter walls and common areas,
including landscaping, will be specified in the CC&R's in the event of
damage.
(5) Disclosure and release: CC&R's shall provide notice to prospective
owners of the urban character of the City and this area, including but not
limited to the permitted uses of the property and buildings in the immediate
area of the development (e.g., MacArthur Place, Griffin Towers, and
surrounding property zoned and/or devoted to commercial use), and shall
provide a release of all claims against the City which may arise from or
relate to the disclosed matters.
(6) Terms and Content:
1. CC&R's are to be in effect in perpetuity.
ii. Any proposed modifications to the CC&R's will reqUIre
approval by the Agency's Executive Director.
Ill. CC&R's shall provide a significant financial penalty (i.e., the
maximum permitted by law) that shall be imposed by the Home
Owner's Association to any member who violates these provisions
5.9 Responsibility For Costs of Work Of Public Art. The City and Owner
agree that Owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with the design, construction,
maintenance and repair of the work of public art provided for in the Public Art Plan.
5.10 Moratoria. Moratoria enacted by the City for the public health, safety,
and welfare, which are imposed on the Property or Project, shall toll the time periods set forth in
this Agreement.
5.11 City to Receive Contract Documents. Owner shall furnish City, upon
written request, copies of contracts and supporting documents relating to the work of public art.
5.13 Conditions of Discretionary Approvals. The requirements imposed as
conditions of any discretionary approval received through the City's existing regulatory process
shall be governed by the terms of those approvals, and in no event shall such conditions be
affected by the termination, cancellation, rescission, revocation, or default or expiration of this
Agreement.
5.14 Compliance With Governmental Requirements. Owner shall carry out
the design, construction, and operation of the Project in substantial conformity with all
13
75C-236
applicable laws, ordinances, statutes, codes, rules, regulations, orders, and decrees of the United
States, the State of California, the County of Orange, the City, or any other political subdivision
in which the Property is located, and of any other political subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality exercising jurisdiction over the City, the Owner or the Property, including all
applicable federal, state, and local occupation, safety and health laws, rules, regulations and
standards, applicable state and labor standards, applicable prevailing wage requirements, the
City zoning and development standards, City permits and approvals, building, plumbing,
mechanical and electrical codes, as they apply to the Property and the Project, and all other
provisions of the City and its Municipal Code (as they apply to the Property and the Project), and
all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including, without the limitation,
the Americans With Disability Act, 42 U.S.c. S 12101 et seq., Government Code S 4450 et seq.,
and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code S 51 et seq. ("Governmental Requirements").
6. ANNUAL REVIEW.
6.1 City and Owner Responsibilities. City shall, at least every twelve (12)
months during the term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial
compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65865.1, as amended, Owner shall have the duty to demonstrate by substantial evidence its good
faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement at the periodic review.
6.2 Review Letter. If Owner is found to be in compliance with the
Agreement after annual review, City shall, upon written request by Owner, issue a Review Letter
to Owner (the "Letter") stating that based upon information known or made known to the City
Council, the City Planning Commission and/or the City Planning Director, the Agreement
remains in effect and Owner is not in default. Owner may record the Letter in the Official
Records of the County of Orange.
6.3 Failure of Periodic Review. City's failure to review at least annually
Owner's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute or be
asserted by any party as a breach of the Agreement by Owner or City.
7. DEFAULT.
7.1 Events of Default. Property Owner is in default under this Agreement
upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(1) If a warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by
Property Owner to the City in conjunction with the Project is false or proves to have been false
in any material respect when it was made;
(2) A finding and determination made by the City following a periodic
review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 that upon the
14
75C-237
basis of substantial evidence the Property Owner has not complied in good faith with one or
more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement;
(3) Failure to comply with Governmental Requirements;
(4) Any other event, condition, act, or omission of Owner, or of its
officers, agents, employees, consultants, special counsel, or representatives, which materially
interferes with the intent and objectives of this Agreement.
7.2 Procedure upon Default.
(I) Upon the occurrence of default, City shall give Property Owner
(the "defaulting party") thirty (30) days written notice specifying the nature of the alleged
default and, when appropriate, the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured.
After proper notice and expiration of said thirty (30) day cure period without cure, City may
terminate or amend this Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City as to
all defaults that may be cured within said thirty (30) day cure period. For defaults that cannot be
cured within said thirty (30) day cure period, City may terminate or amend this Agreement in
accordance with the procedure adopted by the City should at any time Owner fail to diligently
proceed in curing the default. Failure or delay in giving notice of default shall not constitute a
waiver of any default, nor shall it change the time of default.
(2) City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by
Property Owner, if on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or terminate this
Agreement.
(3) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a
third person.
(4) An express repudiation, refusal, or renunciation of the contract, if
the same is in writing and signed by the Property Owner, shall be sufficient to terminate this
Agreement and a hearing on the matter shall not be required.
(5) Adoption of a law or other governmental activity making
performance by the Owner unprofitable or more difficult or more expensive does not excuse the
performance of the obligation by the Property Owner.
(6) All other remedies at law or in equity which are not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Agreement are available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a
breach.
7.3 Damages upon Termination. In no event shall Property Owner be
entitled to any damages against City upon lawful termination of this Agreement.
15
75C-238
7.4 Institution of Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies,
either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default or breach, to
specifically enforce any covenants or Agreements set forth in the Agreement, or to enjoin any
threatened or attempted violation of the Agreement; or to obtain any remedies consistent with the
purpose of the Agreement. Legal actions shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County
of Orange, State of California, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of
California, Southern Division.
8. ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY.
8.1 Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit
Owner, in any manner, at Owner's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion
of the Property or any improvement on the Property by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other
security device securing financing with respect to the Property or its improvement.
8.2 Entitlement to Written Notice of Default. The mortgagee of a mortgage
or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the Property or any part thereof and their
successors and assigns shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive from City
written notification of any default by Owner of the performance of Owner's obligations under the
Agreement which has not been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of default.
8.3 Releases. City agrees that upon written request of Property Owner and
payment of all fees and performance of the requirements and conditions required of Owner by
this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, City may execute and deliver
to Owner appropriate releasee s) of further obligations imposed by this Agreement in form and
substance acceptable to the Orange County Recorder or as may otherwise be necessary to effect
the release.
9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
9.1 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine
gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; "may" is permissive. If there is more than
one signer of this Agreement, their obligations are joint and several.
9.2 Entire Agreement, Waivers and Amendments. This Agreement
constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set
forth in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiation or previous Agreements
between the parties respecting this Agreement. All waivers of the provision of this Agreement
must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City or of Owner. All
amendments to this Agreement must be in writing signed by the appropriate authorities of City
and Owner, in a form suitable for recording in the Official Records of Orange County,
California. Within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Agreement, a copy of this
Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California. Upon the
16
75C-239
completion of performance of this Agreement or its revocation or termination, an appropriate
Certificate of Completion acknowledging such occurrence signed by the appropriate agents of
Owner and City shall be recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California.
9.3 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood by the
parties that: (a) the Project is a private development for purposes of Government Code Section
65864 et seq.; (b) City has no interest in or responsibilities for or duty to third parties concerning
any improvements to the Property or in connection with the Project; and (c) Owner shall have
the full power and exclusive control of the Property subject to the obligations of Owner set forth
in this Agreement.
9.4 Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth in Section I ofthis
Agreement are part of this Agreement.
9.5 Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and
reference only, and shall not define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify, or aid in the
interpretation, construction, or meaning of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
9.6 Consent. Where the consent or approval of a party is required in or
necessary under this Agreement, the consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
9.7 Covenant of Cooperation. The parties shall cooperate with, deal with
each other in good faith, and assist each other in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement.
9.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this
Agreement of which time is an element.
9.9 Conflicts of Law. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations
enacted after this Agreement has been entered into or the action or inaction of any other affected
governmental jurisdiction prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this
Agreement or require changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by the City, the parties shall
provide the other party with written notice of such state or federal restriction, provide a copy of
such regulation or policy, and a statement of conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. The
parties shall, within thirty (30) days, meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to
modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Thereafter,
regardless of whether the parties reach an Agreement on the effect of such federal or state law or
regulation upon the Agreement, the matter shall be scheduled for hearing before the Council.
Public notice of such hearing shall be given pursuant to Government Code Section 65854.5. The
City Council, at such hearing, shall determine the exact modification or suspension which shall
be necessitated by such federal or state law or regulation pursuant to Government Code Section
65869.5. At the hearing Owner shall have the right to offer oral and written testimony.
17
75C-240
9.10 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be
recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, within ten (10)
days following the effective date of this Agreement.
18
75C-241
IN WITNESS Wl-:T\REOF, this Agreement has been executed by the City of
Santa Ana and by Property Owner.
GV
Dated thisaL day of -t'l;.lA~ ,2002.
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
By
DA VID N. REAM
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
By
JOSEPH W. FLETCHER
City Attorney
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC.,
A California Corporation
Franco Mola
Its Chief Executive Officer
GENEVA COMMONS, LLC,
A California Limited Liability Company
(ih:!:d~p)
19
75C-242
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On this day of , 200_, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the City Manager of THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, the charter city
that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who executed the within
instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that
such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution
of its City Council.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
_ On this 2 'Jrd.. day of tv\ (L{C,h , 2005, before me,
\.... Jess{to.. ~ . ~OA.hw'\ \ ,a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
WO ,(I (I t) M 0\ 0-- , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of sat~sfactory evidence) to be theChi~ OOa.-\1(e 0\t~9f (looshll elM l1'q>2-(-M,l~; the
DV'J N-..,(' that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who
executed the within instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to
its bylaws or a resolution of its Board.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
X'I' . . JESSICA ' S~ MARTI'NI ~
- Comm. # 1440974
(1). NOTARY PUBLIC. CALIFORNIA ~
Orange County ..
My Comm. Expires Sep.. 23, 2007
~2.rv1~
20
75C-243
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On this day of , 200_, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the City Manager of THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, the charter city
that executed the within instrument, known to me to be the person who executed the within
instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that
such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution
of its City Council.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
n this ..)\ t;J- day of ~ , 200S , before me,
~ a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared
. j rz.... , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis
of sati~factory evidence) to be the l\uWXi~ f lJIi;'4 of ~ Q.c/t.VwM5 U~ the
~~ ~D.At;U... that executed the wIthin instrument, known to me to be the person who
executed the within instrument on behalf of the municipal corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to
its bylaws or a resolution of its Board.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
J .-. .-. -- -- .... ... ... ~~.J&--I'---<:;
MONIQUE JlJTEAU
~e Commission # 1337679 t
~. Notary Public - CaUfomla ~
z . ~
~ ..' Orange County f
My Comm. Expires Jan 5, 2006
___.,.............___~.-4a,.-~......~.__......
~p~
20
75C-244
EXHIBIT A
Property Legal Description
The approximately 2.957 acre property commonly known as 200 East First American Way in the
City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, identified as Orange County Assessor's
Parcel Number 411-074-03.
21
75C-245
: i
:x>
U,
I
I
I
I
I,
II
,I
II
I'
I
I I
\ II
mt-
I' !" It
en II
I ~ I
~ II
Ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
3:
:b
(')
:b
::tI
-f
:x:
c:
::tI
to
r-
oc:::
o
4+
~
~ ~~
~ ?t~
~~
N o~
,;,z~
8 F:- v
PROMENADE
~
---:-------------
-.15'~~ii~,_seTB~-~~-::~:~_=:~:.:-~~~-:
. ==
"'0
..,0
. ..... "TI .
0....
== '"
-<==
~
..,
'"
&iJ."".
_;IL, :'
'. ,r
...
C>
co.
i:r
3
~p;
2.
~Ro
..,
}
-~.-,..._-------_.__.
4....~'). ,~
,
"
"
en ~ C"")
~~O
:::T~
,.- -:T1 CO
~r-g
~-Uc::
_ 0>
0> -
:=J
G~N~DVu1E ~E~~~p9N~
EXHIBIT B
7 5C-246 SANTA ~ CALIFORNIA
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES
EXHIBIT C
Public Art Plan
1. Public art valued at one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total Project building permit
valuation is required. Public art shall be comprised of a single art piece or grouped art pieces
to be placed at a final location to be determined as specified in paragraph 2.5 of this
Agreement. The public art should invite participation and interaction, inspire, add local
meaning, interpret the community by revealing its culture or history, and/or capture or
reinforce the unique character of the new place. A comprehensive Public Art Plan indicating
compliance with this requirement, and which proposes specific pieces of art for specific
locations or applications, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the
completion of the project's first phase. All public art approved by the Planning Commission
in the Public Art Plan shall be completely installed as provided in paragraph 5.8.1 of this
Agreement.
2. Art should be sited to complement features such as plaza or architectural components so that
the art is an integral part of the development site.
3. Public art should be constructed using durable materials and finishes including but not
limited to stone or metal.
4. No art piece provided pursuant to the public art requirement shall include advertising of any
type, including but not limited to products, services or businesses.
5. All public art provided pursuant to the public art requirement shall be properly maintained at
all times, be free of any graffiti and shall not incorporate any flashing or distracting form of
illumination.
6. All art pieces approved and installed pursuant to the Public Art Plan shall remain on the
project site and may not be removed without the approval of the Planning Commission.
7. Expenses Not Allowed from Art Allocation
1. Expenses to locate the artist (e.g., airfare for artist interviews, etc.)
11. Architect and Landscape Architect fees.
iii. Landscaping around a sculpture that is not included as part of the artist's sculpture
furnishings, including, but not limited to, functional structures, prefabricated water or
electrical features not created by the artist, and ornamental enhancements.
IV. Utility fees associated with activating electronic or water generated artwork.
24
75C-247
v. Lighting elements not integral to the illumination of the art piece.
VI. Publicity, public relations, photographs, educational materials, business letterhead or
logos bearing artwork image.
vii. Dedication ceremonies, including sculpture unveilings or grand openings.
25
75C-248
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
THIS Agreement is entered into this day of ,2005, by and between
the SANDPOINTE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., a California, non-profit public
benefit and federal 501 (c)(3) corporation ("Sandpointe"), the NEXUS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION/CENTRAL DIVISION, INC. a California corporation and The Grand Plan 2,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (collectively referred to herein as "Nexus"),
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation ("Geneva Commons"), the
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, a public body
corporate and politic (the "Agency"), and the CITY OF SANTA ANA, a charter city and municipal
corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California
(the "City").
WITNESSETH
A. Nexus has proposed constructing at Hutton Center a five level residential
condominium project, two 23-residentiallevel condominium high-rise and one 24-residentiallevel
condominium (for a total not to exceed 835 condominium units), together with ancillary retail not
to exceed 14,000 square feet (the ''Nexus Project").
B. Geneva Commons has proposed constructing at the northeast corner of MacArthur
Boulevard and Imperial Promenade an approximately 278-unit condominium project consisting of
an 18-residentiallevel high rise project and an eight-story building, together with ancillary retail
(the "Geneva Commons Project").
C. Sandpointe is a non-profit corporation that serves as a conduit between the
Sandpointe Neighborhood (''Neighborhood'') and outside community and political interests.
Sandpointe Neighborhood is a residential neighborhood of single family and some multi-family
homes in the southeast portion of Santa Ana. The Sandpointe Neighborhood consists of
approximately 800 residences. Sandpointe does not have the authority to bind any individual
resident of the Sandpointe Neighborhood.
D. The Agency is a community redevelopment agency, as that term is defined in
California Health & Safety Code S 33100. In 1982, the Agency created the South Main
Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"), and Nexus and Geneva Commons are located within
the Proj ect Area.
E. Sandpointe has identified certain physical improvements needed in the area of the
Neighborhood that are necessitated by or would in some way offset the impact ofthe two
development projects. Nexus and Geneva Commons desire to contribute towards the cost and/or
construction ofthose improvements to the Sandpointe neighborhood in addition to and to
EXHIBIT D
1
75C-249
supplement the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed by the City of their
respective developments. Those improvements are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made
a part hereof by this reference ("Improvements").
F. The Agency is willing to assist in the funding of the improvements but only from a
portion of the tax increment actually generated by the Nexus and Geneva Commons Projects and to
fund specified improvements that would reduce blight and benefit the Project Area.
G. The City's participation in this Agreement is limited to coordination of funding
and/or construction of certain, herein specified publicly owned improvements.
H. Nexus has agreed to construct some of the improvements, and pay for the
construction of others, as more fully set forth below ("Nexus Improvements").
I. Geneva Commons has agreed to pay for a portion ofthe Nexus Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Nexus shall construct and/or fund the improvements identified as ''Nexus
Improvements" in Exhibit A hereto according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit B to this
Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Nexus shall be entitled to
full use ofthe funds deposited in the Nexus Escrow to undertake the Nexus Improvements.
B. In consideration for Nexus' agreement to construct and/or fund the Nexus
Improvement, Geneva Commons agrees to contribute a sum equal to its pro-rata share of residential
units between itself and Nexus (which is currently twenty-five percent (25%) pursuant to those
numbers set forth in sections A and B ofthe Recitals above) ofthe cost ofthe Nexus
Improvements, towards the cost thereof payable at the time called for below. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if Nexus has not executed this Agreement prior to the date this Agreement becomes
binding on Geneva Commons (which the parties agree shall conclusively deemed to be the first day
upon which this Agreement has been executed by Geneva Commons, the City, the Agency and
Sandpointe), then Geneva Commons pro-rata share contribution to the Nexus Escrow shall be
conclusively fixed at twenty-five (25%) regardless of the actual number of residential units
approved for it and Nexus.
C. Ifthe entire Nexus and Geneva Commons Projects are constructed, Agency shall
cause the construction ofthe improvements identified as "Publicly-Owned Improvements" in
Exhibit A hereto according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference. The parties acknowledge and agree that the total cost of
the publicly owned improvements, including studies, design and overhead, shall not exceed Five
Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).
EXHIBIT D
2
75C-250
2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. Nexus shall, within sixty (60) days of execution of this Agreement, open an escrow
account at First American Title Insurance Company, 2 First American Way, Santa Ana, California,
or an equivalent escrow company approved in advance by Geneva Commons and Sandpointe, for
deposit of funds to be used to pay for the Nexus Improvements (referred to herein as the ''Nexus
Escrow").
B. Sandpointe shall deposit $1,000.00 into the Nexus Escrow on the Escrow
Submission Date no later than the date the ofthe first payment made pursuant to paragraph 2.D. of
this Agreement.
C. Prior to the deadline specified in paragraph 2.D. ofthis Agreement, Nexus and
Geneva Commons shall meet and confer in good faith to agree upon the estimated cost of the
Nexus Improvements. If, at any time, either Geneva Commons or Nexus determines that such
agreement is not possible, then the objecting party shall submit its dispute in writing, together with
any evidence upon which it relies to the Executive Director ofthe City's Public Works Agency and
the other party. Within fifteen (15) days of its receipt of said notice, the non-objecting party shall
then have fifteen (15) days to submit any response it has to the City and the objecting party. The
Executive Director ofthe City's Public Works Agency or designee shall then, within thirty (30)
days of receipt of the response, if any, or the expiration of said deadline, inform both Geneva
Commons and Nexus in writing ofthe final determination ofthe estimated total cost, which all
parties agree shall be conclusive and binding upon both Nexus and Geneva Commons. Thereafter,
Nexus and Geneva Commons shall deposit their respective shares ofthe estimated cost ofthe
Nexus Improvements as set forth in paragraph 1.B. ofthis Agreement, less $1,000.00, into the
Nexus Escrow no later than the date specified in paragraph 2.D. ofthis Agreement.
D. Nexus shall pay into the Nexus Escrow no later than (i) the date the first building
permit is issued by the City for the Nexus Project, or (ii) a date ninety (90) days after the issuance
of entitlements to Nexus, provided no litigation or referendum petition challenging Nexus has been
filed and served on the City, whichever comes later. Geneva Commons shall pay into the Nexus
Escrow no later than (i) the date the first building permit is issued by the City for the Geneva
Commons Project, or (ii) a date ninety (90) days after the issuance of entitlements to Geneva
Commons, provided no litigation or referendum petition challenging Geneva Commons has been
filed and served on the City, whichever comes later.
EXHIBIT D
1
75C-251
E. The Agency shall pay the City its cost incurred by the City for the Publicly-Owned
Improvements set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement; provided, however that total commitment
by the City and Agency toward the Publicly-Owned Improvements shall not exceed FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00). Ifthe items set forth as Publicly-Owned Improvements in
Exhibit A are found to cost more than this sum, then the Agency shall, in the exercise of its sole and
absolute discretion, limit or eliminate Publicly-Owned Improvements set forth in Exhibit A;
provided, however, that the Agency shall proceed with the Publicly-Owned Improvements in the
order as set forth in said Exhibit.
3. NEXUS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. Nexus shall prepare and submit construction drawings and related documents for
items listed on Exhibit A to the City for review (including, but not limited to, architectural review)
and written approval as and at the times established in the Schedule of Performance set forth in
Exhibit B to this Agreement. The construction drawings and related documents shall be submitted
in two stages: (i) the Preliminary Site Plans and (ii) Final Site Plans.
B. During the preparation of all drawings and plans, City staff and Nexus shall hold
regular progress meetings to coordinate the preparation of, submission to, and review of
construction plans and related documents by the City. The City staff and Nexus shall communicate
and consult informally as frequently as is necessary to insure that the formal submittal of any
documents to the City can receive prompt and speedy consideration.
C. Any revision or correction of plans required by the City shall be deemed approved
by the Agency, Geneva Commons and Sandpointe.
D. Neither the City, the Agency, Sandpointe or Geneva Commons shall have any
ownership interest in, or any right to use, the Preliminary Site Plans or the Final Site Plans
submitted by Nexus, nor shall the City, the Agency, Sandpointe or Geneva Commons authorize the
right to use any such plans or drawings to any person or entity.
4. APPROVAL OF NEXUS PLANS, DRAWINGS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. The City shall have the right of reasonable review (including, but not limited to,
architectural review) of all plans, drawings and related documents including any proposed changes
therein. The City shall approve or disapprove such plans, drawings, and related (and any proposed
changes therein) within the times established in the Schedule of Performance set forth in Exhibit B
hereto. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
B. Any disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval. The City shall
have the right to disapprove, in its reasonable discretion, any of the Final Plans if the Final Plans do
not conform to the Approved Plans, the approved Preliminary Plans or do not conform to Exhibit A
to this Agreement, or are incomplete.
EXHIBIT D
4
75C-252
C. The City shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval of the Final Plans within
sixty (60) days of receipt of copies of such Final Plans. Failure to respond within this sixty (60)
day period shall not be grounds for resubmittal.
D. Nexus, upon receipt of a notice of disapproval, shall revise such portions ofthe
plans, drawings or related documents in a manner that reasonably satisfies the reasons for
disapproval and shall resubmit such revised portions to the City as soon as possible after receipt of
the notice of disapproval. Plans, drawings, and related documents receiving City approval shall not
be subsequently disapproved. Nexus shall ensure that all of its plans, drawings and related
documents comply with all Governmental Requirements.
5. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEXUS
IMPROVEMENTS
a. Nexus shall construct and/or fund, utilizing the Nexus Escrow, the improvements in
conformance with Exhibit A to this Agreement and the approved Final Plans. To the extent that the
cost ofthe Nexus Improvements, constructed in conformance with Exhibit A to this Agreement and
the approved Final Plans, exceeds the funds in the Nexus Escrow, Nexus and Geneva Commons
shall be solely responsible for said costs, with each responsible for any additional cost to the same
percentage as is set forth in paragraph 1.B. of this Agreement. Nexus shall complete or fund, as the
case may be, the construction ofthe improvements in conformance with the schedule set forth in
Exhibit B to this Agreement.
b. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Block Wall identified as Item No.1 on
Exhibit A will be constructed on the properties of dozens of individual homeowners in the
Sandpointe neighborhood, none of whom are parties to this Agreement. The parties agree to use
their best efforts to obtain permission of each of these individual property owners to construct this
Block Wall and to permit the City to permanently maintain the climbing ivy along the exterior of
the wall. However, it is the parties understanding and intent that should any property owner refuse
to agree to permit the construction and/or exterior ivy maintenance ("hold outs"), that the Block
Wall will be constructed regardless of any hold-outs, and that Nexus shall construct the Block Wall
in such fashion as to join the Block Wall to existing wall segments owned by hold outs and
minimize any negative aesthetic impact caused by such hold outs. Nexus agrees to hold Sandpointe
and its officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from any claim by any and all property
owners including such hold outs arising out ofthe construction ofthe Block Wall in which
Sandpointe, or its officers, directors, employees or agents are named. Nexus shall be permitted to
select counsel to defend Sandpointe at the expense of Nexus. In the event of a potential conflict of
interest between Sandpointe and Nexus, Sandpointe shall have the right to select independent
counsel. All fees and costs of independent counsel selected by Sandpointe for defense of any claim
arising out of or relating to any claims described herein shall be paid by Nexus on behalf of
Sandpointe.
EXHIBIT D
'i
75C-253
6. AGENCY NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
PUBLICLY OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy pursuant to the California Building Code
for (i) all residential units in a minimum of two of the three high-rise towers in the Nexus Project,
and (ii) all residential units in the Geneva Commons Project, the Agency shall give the City a
notice to proceed to design and construct the Publicly-Owned Improvements as set forth in Exhibit
A. If only a portion of the residential units have been constructed within five (5) years of the date
ofthe Commencement Date, then the Agency shall only give the City a notice to proceed with a
partial list of items as set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement. The Agency's obligation to pay for
the Publicly-Owned improvements, and the City's obligation to complete these Publicly-Owned
Improvements, or any part thereof, shall be limited by the Agency's ability to fund said work from
the project-specific tax increment generated by the Nexus Project; provided, however, that City and
Agency shall construct item no. l.a. on the list of Publicly-Owned Improvements in Exhibit A to
this Agreement regardless ofthe project-specific tax increment received by the Agency.
7. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY
OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
a. City shall construct the Publicly-Owned Improvements in conformance with the
schedule set forth in Exhibit C to this Agreement and the approved Final Plans; provided, however,
that the Agency and City shall have no obligation once the cost of the Publicly-Owned
Improvements exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00). Ifthe cost ofthe Publicly-Owned
Improvements, including all design, administrative and construction costs exceed $5,000,000.00,
then the City shall construct only that portion of the Publicly Owned Improvements as specified in
Exhibit C in the exercise of the Agency's sole and absolute discretion.
b. City shall, at the conclusion ofthe plant establishment phase specified in Exhibit B,
additionally maintain the climbing vines and irrigation constructed by Nexus along the outside of
the block wall, referenced in item no. 1 on Exhibit A hereto, but the City's obligation to maintain
the climbing vines shall only apply to those property owners who execute a fac;ade easement with
the City in a form approved by the City Attorney permitting the City to maintain said climbing
vines and indemnifying the City from any liability caused by said climbing vines and/or irrigation.
Sandpointe shall be responsible for obtaining signatures from these individual homeowners.
8. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION DURING CONSTRUCTION; BODILY
INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE
A. From and after the Effective Date, Nexus and Geneva Commons agree to and shall
indemnify and hold Agency, City and Sandpointe, and their respective officers, directors, agents
and employees harmless from and against all damages to property or injuries to or death of any
person or persons, including employees or agents of Agency or City, and shall defend, indemnify
EXHIBIT D
h
75C-254
and save Agency, City and Sandpointe, and their officers, agents, and employees, from any and all
claims, demands, suits, actions, or proceedings of any kind or nature, including, but not by way of
limitation, workers' compensation claims of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from
the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Nexus or Geneva Commons or their respective
employees, agents or subcontractors. For itself and no other, Sandpointe agrees to hold harmless
Agency, City and their respective officers, directors, agents and employees from and against all
damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, in any way resulting from the
negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Nexus or Geneva Commons, or their respective
employees, agents or subcontractors. This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to
obligate Sandpointe, its officers, directors or agents, or the Neighborhood to defend, indemnify or
to answer in any way for the Agency the City or their respective officers, directors, agents or
employees for such claims.
B. Prior to the commencement of construction, Nexus or any other party working
within the real property of the City or Agency, shall obtain at its sole cost and file with the City and
Agency, and maintain for the period covered by this Agreement, a policy or policies ofliability
insurance or a certificate of such insurance, consistent with this Agreement, naming Agency, the
City and Sandpointe, their officers, directors, agents, and employees, as insured or additional
insured, which provides coverage not less than that provided in the form of a comprehensive
general liability insurance policy against liability for any and all claims and suits for damages or
injuries to persons or property resulting from or arising out of operations of Nexus, its officers,
directors, agents, or employees. Said policy or policies of insurance shall provide coverage for both
bodily injury and property damage in not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined
single limit, or its equivalent. Said policy or policies shall also contain a provision that no
termination, cancellation, or change of coverage of insured shall be effective until after thirty (30)
days notice thereof has been given in writing to City and Agency. Nexus shall give to Agency and
City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Nexus operations
hereunder. Nexus may procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds and
amounts of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection in the
prosecution ofthe work. All insurance policies shall be written by responsible and solvent
insurance companies and shall include an additional insured endorsement in substantially the form
of Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
9. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
Nexus shall carry out the design, construction, and operation of the Nexus Improvements in
substantial conformity with all applicable laws, ordinances, statutes, codes, rules, regulations,
orders, and decrees of the United States, the State of California, the County of Orange, the City, or
any other political subdivision in which the Property is located, and of any other political
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality exercising jurisdiction over the City or Nexus, including all
applicable federal, state, and local occupation, safety and health laws, rules, regulations and
standards, applicable state and labor standards, applicable prevailing wage requirements, the City
zoning and development standards, City permits and approvals, building, plumbing, mechanical
EXHIBIT D
7
75C-255
and electrical codes, and all other provisions of the City and its Municipal Code, and all applicable
disabled and handicapped access requirements, including, without the limitation, the Americans
With Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. S 12101 et seq., Government Code ~ 4450 et seq., and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act, Civil Code S 51 et seq. ("Governmental Requirements").
10. DEF AUL TS AND REMEDIES
If any party defaults in performance of its obligations, covenants or agreements hereunder,
the defaulting party shall be entitled to cure the default in accordance with this section. The injured
party shall give written notice of default to the party in default, specifying the default complained of
by the injured party. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor
shall it change the time of default. The defaulting party must, within thirty (30) days, following
service of said notice, commence to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete
such cure, correction, or remedy with reasonable diligence.
11. INSTITUTION OF LEGAL ACTIONS
Subject to the provisions of Section 13 hereof, in addition to any other rights or remedies, either
party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default to recover damages for any
default, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose ofthis Agreement.
12. APPLICABLE LAW
This Agreement and all questions relating to its validity, interpretation, performance, and
enforcement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity,
interpretation, performance, and enforcement of any of the clauses of this Agreement shall be
determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. All parties further agree that
Orange County, California, shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or
arise out of, in connection with or by reason of this Agreement.
13. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ARE CUMULATIVE
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the
rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of
such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any
other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.
EXHIBIT D
R
75C-256
14. DAMAGES
In the event that the Agency or City is liable for damages to Nexus, Sandpointe and/or Geneva
Commons, such liability shall not exceed costs incurred by Nexus, Sandpointe and/or Geneva
Commons in the performance of this Agreement and shall not extend to compensation for loss of
future income, profits or assets.
15. NOTICES, DEMAND AND COMMUNICATIONS
Formal notices, demands and communications between the parties shall be sufficiently given if
dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal
offices ofthe Agency and the Developer as designated below. Such written notices, demands and
communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from
time to time designate by mail as provided in this section.
City:
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Attn: Steve Harding, Executive Director
Phone: (714) 667-2700
Fax: (714) 973-1461
with copy to:
City Attorney
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-29
Santa Ana, California 92702
Agency:
Community Development Agency
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-25
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Attn: Patricia C. Whitaker, Executive Director
Phone: (714) 647-5360
Fax: (714) 647-6549
with copy to:
Agency General Counsel
Community Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-29
Santa Ana, California 92702
EXHIBIT D
<)
75C-257
Sandpointe:
Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 27122
Santa Ana, California 92799
Attention: Bob Black
Nexus:
Nexus Development Corporation/Central Division, Inc.
The Grand Plan 2
1 MacArthur Place, Suite 300
Santa Ana, California 92707
Attention: Cory W. Alder
Geneva Commons:
Coastal Rim Properties, Inc.
139 East Alton Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92707
Attention: Franco Mola
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other parties. Thereafter, any
notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be addressed and transmitted to the
new address. If sent by mail, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be
effective or deemed to have been given three (3) days after it has been deposited in the United
States mail, duly registered or certified, with postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth above. If
sent by facsimile, any notice, tender, demand, delivery, or other communication shall be effective
or deemed to have been given twenty-four (24) hours after the time set forth on the transmission
report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, addressed as set forth above. For purposes of
calculating these time frames, weekends, federal, state, County or City holidays hall be excluded.
EXHIBIT D
10
75C-258
16. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall take effect from and after the date of adoption and approval by the
City and the Agency pursuant to official action of the governing bodies thereof and shall be
effective until completion and acceptance of the Nexus Improvements and Publicly-Owned
Improvements. If Geneva Commons is approved by the City and Nexus is not, then Geneva
Commons shall take over Nexus' obligations to construct a portion ofthe Nexus Improvements
under this Agreement, but shall be required to (i) meet and confer with the Agency and Sandpointe,
and using the order ofthe Nexus Improvements specified in Exhibit A as a guide, designate which
of the Nexus Improvements shall be constructed using Geneva Commons twenty-five percent
(25%) share ofthe estimated cost of the total Nexus Improvements, and (ii) the parties agree and
acknowledge that all references herein to Nexus shall be deemed to be references to Geneva
Commons. If Nexus is approved and Geneva Commons is not, then Nexus, the Agency and
Sandpointe shall meet and confer in good faith, and using the order of the Nexus Improvements
specified in Exhibit A as a guide, designate which ofthe Nexus Improvements shall be constructed
using Nexus seventy-five percent (75%) share ofthe estimated cost ofthe total Nexus
Improvements.
17. COMMENCEMENT DATE
For purposes of this Agreement the term "Commencement Date" shall refer to the period
after issuance of City entitlements and shall be deemed to be a date ninety (90) days after the
issuance of entitlements to Nexus and Geneva Commons (whichever comes later). The
Commencement Date shall be tolled should a valid referendum petition be presented challenging
either project, or timely litigation be filed and served challenging any of the entitlements, including
approval pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
18. INTEGRATION
This Agreement integrates all ofthe terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto,
and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreement between the parties with respect to all or
any the matters addressed herein. All waivers ofthe provisions of this Agreement must be in
writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the parties, and all amendments hereto must
be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the parties.
19. ASSIGNMENT
Nexus and Geneva Commons shall have the right to transfer or assign this Agreement, in
whole, to any person, entity (public or private), partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation
who is the owner ofthe real property referenced in the Recital hereto at any time during the term
of this Agreement; provided, however, the rights of Nexus or Geneva Commons under this
Agreement may not be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the City Council is
first obtained and any transfer or assignment of the rights under this Agreement shall include in
EXHIBIT D
11
75C-259
the City grants written consent to transfer the rights. Nor shall the rights of Nexus or Geneva
Commons hereunder be subject to assignment by attachment, execution, or proceedings under
any provision of the Bankruptcy Act, and any such assignment or transfer shall be wholly void
and of no force and effect unless such written consent thereto be obtained from the City Council.
Such transfer or assignment shall not relieve Nexus or Geneva Commons of any duty, obligation
or liability to City without the consent of the City.
During the term of this Agreement, any approved assignee or transferee of the
rights under this Agreement shall observe and perform all of the duties and obligations of Nexus
or Geneva Commons contained in this Agreement as such duties and obligations pertain to the
Nexus or Geneva Commons. Any and all approved successors and assignees of Nexus or
Geneva Commons shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of
Nexus or Geneva Commons under this Agreement. If the Property is subdivided, any subdivided
parcel may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned, or transferred to persons for
development by them. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights of Nexus or Geneva Commons
under this Agreement, the obligations of the assignor and the transferee or assignee shall be joint
and several.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and
year first above written.
SANDPOINTE NEIGHBORHOOD,
ASSOCIATION, INC.
BY~~
Name &g:f:-lIIc/t
Its C1{4/~tJ .....
NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION/
CENTRAL DIVISION, INC.
By
Name
Its
12
75C-260
the City grants written consent to transfer the rights. Nor shall the rights of Nexus or Geneva
Commons hereunder be subject to assignment by attachment, execution, or proceedings under
any provision of the Bankruptcy Act, and any such assignment or transfer shall be wholly void
and of no force and effect unless such written consent thereto be obtained from the City Council.
Such transfer or assignment shall not relieve Nexus or Geneva Commons of any duty, obligation
or liability to City without the consent of the City.
During the term of this Agreement, any approved assignee or transferee of the
rights under this Agreement shall observe and perform all of the duties and obligations of Nexus
or Geneva Commons contained in this Agreement as such duties and obligations pertain to the
Nexus or Geneva Commons. Any and all approved successors and assignees of Nexus or
Geneva Commons shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of
Nexus or Geneva Commons under this Agreement. If the Property is subdivided, any subdivided
parcel may be sold, mortgaged, hypothecated, assigned, or transferred to persons for
development by them. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights of Nexus or Geneva Commons
under this Agreement, the obligations of the assignor and the transferee or assignee shall be joint
and several.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and
year first above written.
SANDPOINTE NEIGHBORHOOD,
ASSOCIATION, INC.
By
Name
Its
NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION/
CENTRAL DIVISION, INC.
By
Name
Its
k (La J..,,--
12
75C-261
ATTEST:
Patricia E. Healy
Clerk of the Council
THE GRAND PLAN 2, LLC
By
Curtis R. Olson
Managing Partner
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES, INC.
By
Name
Its
4-~
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
By
David N. Ream
City Manager
n
75C-262
ATTEST:
Patricia E. Healy
Secretary of Agency
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher
Agency General Counsel
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
By
Patricia C. Whitaker
Executive Director
EXHIBIT D
14
75C-263
EXHIBIT A
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Nexus Improvements
1. Block Wall
a. Main Street between Murphy & Sunflower, and house located at 101 W. Murphy
b. North side of Sunflower between Main & alley adjacent to four plexes, excluding
sections of wall at comer of Main & Sunflower at rear of commercial building
c. Plaster and paint with one color selected by Association
d. $3,000 per house payment for repair/replacement oflandscaping associated with
wall improvements upon execution of Nexus right-of-entry for construction and
exterior-wall maintenance easement. This payment shall be made by Nexus at the
time the individual property owner executes the construction easement in favor of
Nexus and permanent maintenance easement (for the climbing vines) in favor of
the City. For any "hold outs" (as defined in paragraph 6.b. of this Agreement,
Nexus shall make the $3,000 payment to Sandpointe in trust for each hold out.
e. Remove and replace 16 sections of white concrete block wall in immediate area of
MacArthur Boulevard and Flower Street, and paint with one color selected by
Association.
f. Remove and replace 4 sections of white concrete block wall along West Alton
Avenue and paint with one color selected by Association.
g. Nexus shall install climbing vines, species identified by the City, along the outer
edge of the wall, install irrigation to feed said climbing vines which shall be
connected and metered by Nexus at the nearest City water supply, and shall
reconstruct the sidewalk to the City's specifications after installation of the
irrigation lines and block wall.
h. Wall replacement specifications shall be established pursuant to paragraph 4 of
this Agreement.
1. Nexus shall maintain, and replace as necessary, the climbing vines during a ninety
(90) day plant establishment phase following item no. l.g.
2. Window Replacements
a. Nexus shall provide $3,500 construction allowance per house for sound proof
window replacements for up to 49 residential units located along Main Street and
Sunflower Avenue behind the existing concrete wall to be replaced. The 49
residential units are identified in Exhibit A-I to this Agreement.
b. Nexus shall assist Sandpointe in obtaining/preparing necessary construction bids,
documents and permits.
c. Allowance will be paid by Nexus to Sandpointe for any applicable home upon
receipt of bona fide construction or material invoices.
d. Allowance shall expire 12 months following the completion of the concrete wall
EXHIBIT D
1'i
75C-264
replacement improvements.
e. Window specifications shall be established pursuant to paragraph 4 of this
Agreement.
3. Taft Elementary Loading Zone
a. Nexus shall construct all improvements necessary to effectuate Definitive
Easement Agreement between Santa Ana Unified School District, Nexus and
South Coast Church.
b. Improvements to loading zone shall include driveway approaches, traffic lanes on
site, striping, church building renovations, portable classroom relocations,
computer lab on school and church properties, etc. as provided for in plans
included as part of Definitive Easement Agreement.
4. Pay City $200,000 for City to implement a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan ("NTMP") to mitigate changes in traffic patterns or increased cut through
traffic resulting from the Nexus and Geneva Commons Projects in the Sandpointe
Neighborhood. NTMP costs shall include traffic studies, staff time to process
neighborhood traffic plan, and the construction of appropriate traffic calming
devices, including but not limited to semi-diverters, diagonal diverters, and street
closures. The implementation of the NTMP shall be pursuant to procedures
adopted by the City Council.
5. Nexus shall pay the City the full cost (see Exhibit B) for the installation of a
Traffic Signal at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street.
Publicly-Owned Improvements
1 Utility Undergrounding
a. Main Street - MacArthur to Sunflower
b. MacArthur - Main to Flower
c. Sunflower - Main to Flower (north side of street)
EXHIBIT D
lh
75C-265
Stn!lc Family Homes:
. J. 101 W. Murphy
2. 3701 S. Alder
3. 3705 S. Alder
4. 3709 S. Alder
5. 3713 S. Alder
6. 3717 S. Alder
7. 372 I S. Alder
8. 372.5 S. Alder
9. 3729 So Alder
10. 3801 S. Alder
11. 3805 S. Alder
12. 3809 S. Alder
13. 3813 S. Alder
14. 3817 S. Alder
15. 3821 S. Alder
16. 3825 S. Alder
17. 3829 S. Alder
18. 3901 S. AldQ-
19. 3905 S. Alder
20. 3909 S. Alder
21. 102 W. Stevens
22. 106 W. Stevens
23. 110 W. SteVens
24. 114 W. SteVens
25. 118 W. Stevens
26. 122 W. Stevens
27. 202 W. Stevens
28. 206 W. SteVens
29. 210 W. SteYCl'lS
30. 214 W. Stevens
31. 3926 S. Timber
32. 302 W. Stcvms
33. 306 W. Stcvt:ns
34. 310 W. Stevens
35. 314 W. Stevens
36. 318 S. SteVens
37. 3922 S. Birch
FOllqllext..'l
38. 3925 S. Ross
39. 401 W. Sunflower
40. 405 W. Sunflower
41- 409 W. Sunflower
42. 501 W. Sunflower
43. 505 W. Sunflower
44. 509 W. Sunflower
45. 513 W. Sunflower
Main Attraction Cbndominiumll
46. 3620 A S. Main
47.3632 A S. Mnin
48. 3632 B S. Main
49.3632 C S. Main
EXHIBIT A-1
List of 49 Residential Units
List of Eligible Homes for
Window Replacements
Along Main 1I1ld Sunflower
(sidelll() Main)
(backs to M:1in)
(bac1cs to Main)
(backs to Mein)
(~ to Main)
(bades 10 Main)
(back.<; to Main)
(back!l to Main)
(backs to Main)
(back..~ 10 Main)
(bac:k..1 to Main
(backs to Main)
(beclts to Mail'l)
(backs to Main)
(backs to Main)
(bacl(s to Alder)
(backs 10 Main)
(becla to Main)
(backs \.0 Main)
(hacles to Main)
(backs to Main lI\1d MiniMarket)
(boclcs to Mllin and Mini Marlcef.)
(backs to Main and Mini Market)
(backs to Sunflower and Mini Market)
(backs to Sunflower)
(Ncks to Sunflower)
(bacla to Sunnower)
(bsd<s to Sunflower)
(back.:! to Sunflower)
(blIcks to Sunflower)
(Rides to Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(backs \.0 Sunflower)
(back.~ to Sunflower)
(backs to Sunflower)
(blIcks to Suntlower)
(b8eks to Sunflower)
(llidcs to Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(fTonu Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(front.\ Sunflower)
(fron!., Sunflower)
(fronts Sunflower)
(sides to Main)
(fronts Main)
(fronts Main)
(fTents Mnin)
17
75C-266
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF NEXUS IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of Item No. 1 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. Preliminary Site Plans - Due within thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date.
c. Final Plans - Due within sixty (60) days of City approval of Preliminary Site
Plans, together with proposed Right-Of-Entry and Maintenance Easement for
review of City and Sandpointe.
d. Building Permits, Construction Right-Of-Entry (in favor of Nexus), and
Permanent Maintenance Easement for Exterior of Wall (in favor of City) -
Application, right of entries and easements shall be submitted no late than sixty
(60) days after City approval of Final Plans.
e. Construction Commencement - Within thirty (30) days after approval of Building
Permits.
f. Construction Complete - Within one hundred twenty (120) days of
commencement of construction.
g. Ninety (90) day plant establishment phase after completion of construction of
climbing vines and irrigation.
2. Construction of Item No.2 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. Final building permit plans shall be submitted by individual Sandpointe
homeowners to City no later than construction complete date for item no. 1,
above.
b. Construction shall be complete pursuant within one hundred twenty (120) days of
issuance of City Building Permit.
3. Construction ofItem No.3 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. Nexus shall submit executed Definitive Easement Agreement to all parties no
later than one hundred eighty (180) days of the Commencement Date. If Nexus
fails to meet this deadline, which may be extended in writing by Nexus and
Sandpointe, then Nexus shall deposit $1.2 million from the Nexus Escrow into a
separate escrow with terms providing for its withdrawal by Sandpointe, which are
mutually agreeable to all parties, for use by Sandpointe on other projects to
benefit the Sandpointe neighborhood.
b. Nexus shall complete this item not later than eighteen (18) months from the
EXHIBIT D
lR
75C-267
Commencement Date.
4. Nexus shall pay City for item no. 4 to Exhibit A not later than approval of the first final
map for the Nexus Project. The City shall follow the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan Policy adopted by the City Council.
5. Construction ofItem No.5 to Exhibit A shall conform to the following schedule:
a. The City shall provide Nexus with a preliminary estimate of this cost within thirty
(30) days of the Commencement Date. This preliminary estimate shall be updated,
if necessary, upon the City's receipt of Nexus application to final any portion of its
tentative tract map. Said estimate shall be conclusive.
b. Nexus shall pay the City the estimated cost of this item not later than approval of
the first final map for the Nexus Project.
c. The City shall complete construction of this item prior to the first certificate of
occupancy for the Nexus Project.
Any deadline pursuant to this Exhibit C may be extended by mutual written agreement of Nexus
and the City Manager or designee.
EXHIBIT D
19
75C-268
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED IMPROVEMENTS
1. City shall complete item no. l.a. on Exhibit A of Publicly-Owned Improvements not later
than June 2005.
2. City shall complete item no. l.b. on Exhibit A ofPublic1y-Owned Improvements not later
than five (5) years after the Agency provides City with the then estimated cost of the
project.
3. City shall complete item no. l.c. on Exhibit A ofPublic1y-Owned Improvements not later
than five (5) years after the Agency provides City with the then estimated cost of the
project.
Notwithstanding this schedule, City shall make a reasonable good faith effort to effectuate the
completion ofthese Publicly-Owned Improvements (which, under current law. must be designed
and constructed by Southern California Edison and not the City) prior to the dates specified above.
EXHIBIT D
20
75C-269
Exhibit "E"
Geneva Commons
Public Improvements
Improvement
Location
New sidewalk
Property frontage on First American Way
New driveway ("pan" style)
First American Way
Dedication for 25' x 25' corner cut-off
NIE comer of MacArthur & Imperial
Promenade
Sidewalk easement
10' along property frontage of MacArthur
Blvd.
Street dedication
60' from street centerline along MacArthur
Blvd.
4" depressed curb
Emergency access on MacArthur Blvd.
Triple-left traffic mitigation measure
Southbound Imperial Promenade at
MacArthur Blvd.
Slurry Seal (including crack repair)
On Imperial Promenade and First American
Way along property frontage from curb to
street centerline
Installation of new public fire hydrants
Along MacArthur Blvd. and First American
Way .
K:ISr. ManagementlTo Be Filed\Geneva Commons Public lmprov.doc
75C-270
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2681
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT NO. 43, PERTAINING TO
MACARTHUR PLACE (SD-43) (ZOA NO. 2004-05)
THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOllOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find,
determine and declare as follows:
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05 has been filed with the
City of Santa Ana to amend the Specific Development No. 43 (SD-
43) to increase the allowed residential units to a total of 624, which
includes the existing 346 and the proposed 278-unit development.
B. On January 4, 1988, the City Council created Specific Development
No. 43 (NS-1941).
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly
noticed public hearing on November 22, 2004, and by a vote of 5:0
(De la Torre and Sinclair absent) voted to recommend that the City
Council:
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No.
2002-215.
2. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No.
2004-03.
3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 2004-05.
4. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2004-24 as conditioned.
5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-
05 as conditioned.
6. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-11 as
conditioned.
7. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2004-06
as conditioned.
D. MacArthur Place (SD-43) original concept was to encourage the
"village" concept. The proposed amendments to SD-43 will allow
75C-271
Ordinance No. NS- XXX
Page 1 of 3
additional residential units to be constructed to exceed the 400
residential units originally permitted in MacArthur Place.
E. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05 is consistent with the
General Plan, including but not limited to its goals and policies to:
1. Support high density residential development within the City's
District Centers as apart of master-planned mixed use
development. Land Use Element Policy 1.2.
2. Target areas in the City for the creation of new housing units
and opportunities for all segments of the community. Housing
Element Policy 4.1.
3. Encourage a balance of land uses that promote livable
communities. Housing Element Policy 6.2.
F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004-05 is hereby found and
determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity,
convenience, and general welfare.
G. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Environmental Review No. 2002-215, was approved
and adopted by resolution which came before the City Council on
April 4, 2005. This ordinance incorporates by reference, as though
fully set forth herein, this resolution and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Section 2. Specific Development No. 43 (SD-43) is hereby amended as
set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth
herein.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of
Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the
fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
ADOPTED this _ day of April, 2005.
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Ordinance No. NS- XXX
Page 2 of 3
75C-272
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher
City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Ordinance No. NS-2681 to be the original ordinance adopted by the
City Council of the City of Santa Ana on , and that said
ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS- XXX
Page 3 of 3
75C-273
III. MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING DENSITY/INTENSITY
A. MAXIMUM DENSITIES
The maximum authorized building densities/intensities for the MacArthur Place District Center are
as follows:
1. 4,051,000 square feet of Floor Area of office/commercial use; plus
2. 400-624 residential units with an authorized maximum of 500,000 square feet of Floor
Area of building structures to accommodate the residential units;
3. The maximum office/commercial density with no residential use is 4,175,000 square feet
of Floor Area.
The maximum densities can be converted or exchanged as follows:
a. 1,000 square feet ofPloor Area for office space can be converted into and exchanged
for 2 hotel rooms (common areas in hotels are not calculated in the determination of
maximum densities).
b. 1,000 square feet of Floor Area of office space can be converted into and exchanged
for 3.23 residential units.
c. 1,000 square feet of Ploor Area of office can be exchanged for 280 square feet of
retail commercial.
Parking structures are not included in the calculation of Ploor Area.
The MacArthur Place District Center will be developed contingent on the installation of major
infrastructure improvements as set forth in the EIR. The applicable infrastructure improvements
corresponding to each phase of development within the MacArthur Place District Center are required
to be substantially completed as follows:
(i) With respect to the first phase of the Development, fifty percent (50%) of all applicable
first phase off-site improvements set forth in Section 2.4 and Table 1 of the EIR shall be
completed prior to the issuance of any tenancy occupancy permits with respect to the last
building to be constructed in such phase, and the remainder of all first phase off-site
improvements shall be completed not later than one year following the date of issuance of
such tenant occupancy permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a condition to such
one-year extension of the obligation to complete such first phase off-site improvements,
Developer shall deliver to City sufficient security to ensure the completion of the
remaining first phase off-site improvements within such one-year period;
5
Exhibit "A"
75C-274
-
2. No refuse collection areas shall be permitted between a frontage street and the building
line.
H. Telephone and Electrical Service
All "on site" electrical lines and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformers
or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent
properties.
RESIDENTIAL
A. Buildill!! Heiehts
Building heights shall be as designated In the Professional/Building
Office/Commercial/Retail Hotel designation.
B. Permitted Density
Maximum density shall not exceed the ~624 dwelling units for the entire MacArthur Place
District Center.
C. Minimum Lot Area
None.
D. Minimim Lot Width
None.
E. Usable Open Space
Ground level open space must be provided within 500 feet of any residential unit on the site
at a rate of 250 square feet of area for each unit. Such usable open space shall be divided
between common and private open space. Private and open space shall be required to be
provided for each unit at a rate of no less than ninety (90) square feet of the total open space
required.
F. Yard Requirements
Refer to setbacks for Professional and Business Offices/Commercial/Retail/Hotel.
G. Maximum Lot Coveraee
None; provided, however, minimum setbacks complying with requirements of this Specific
Development Plan shall be required.
16
Exhibit "A"
75C-275
KO-03/25/05
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-24 AS CONDITIONED TO ALLOW
A HEALTH FACILITY FOR USE OF THE PROJECT RESIDENTS;
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2004-05 AS CONDITIONED;
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2004-11 AS CONDITIONED TO REDUCE
THE REQUIRED SETBACKS; APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2004-
06 AS CONDITIONED; CONSENTING TO A COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE AERONAUTICS
ACT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 EAST FIRST AMERICAN
WAY (COUNTY MAP NO. 6556)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
A. Coastal Rim Properties is requesting approval of a conditional use permit,
development agreement, tentative tract map, variance and zoning
ordinance amendment to allow the construction of two residential high rise
buildings with 278 condominium units and 13,000 square feet of retail
space at 200 East First American Way.
B. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana held a duly noticed
public hearing on November 22,2004, and by a vote of 5:0 (De La Torre
and Sinclair absent) voted to recommend that the City Council:
1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2002-215.
2. Adopt an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2004-03.
3. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No.
2004-05.
4. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24
as conditioned.
5. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as
cond itioned.
6. Adopt a resolution approving Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned.
75C-276
Resolution No. 2005-040
Page 1 of 23
7. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as
conditioned.
C. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 has been filed with the City of Santa
Ana seeking to allow the construction of a health facility for the use of the
project residents. Pursuant to SO-43, Health Facilities are permitted uses
subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City
Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain
findings.
i. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community?
The proposed private health facility for the Geneva
Commons project will provide a service to the
residents by making fitness equipment and
community meeting space available for the future
tenants. Conditions of approval have been included
to ensure the facilities are available for the
homeowners only.
ii. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the
particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity?
The proposed health facility will not be detrimental to
persons residing and working in the area as the use
will not create any negative or adverse impacts but
will provide an additional amenity to the Geneva
Commons development.
iii. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties
surrounding the area?
The proposed facility will be situated within the
Geneva Commons development. This amenity will
reinforce the economic viability of the project and will
assist in identifying the project as a viable residential
community.
iv. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in Chapter 41 for such use?
75C-277
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 2 of 25
The project will be in compliance with all applicable
provisions of Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code as well as the provisions of the SD-43
zoning district.
v. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or
any specific plan of the City?
The proposed project will not adversely affect the
General Plan as residential development and ancillary
uses are permitted within the District Center (DC)
general plan designation.
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 (County Map No. 16556) has been filed
seeking approval of a tentative tract map for condominium purposes.
1. To adopt a Tentative Tract Map, California Government Code
Section 66474 requires the following findings:
I. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and
improvements are consistent with the District Center
designation on the General Plan and are otherwise
consistent with all other elements of the General Plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is consistent with the
land use designation and density prescribed in the
General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the
surrounding land uses in the area.
ii. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all
applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes
as well as other applicable City ordinances.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is in keeping with the
provisions of the site plan review (DP No. 04-26) and
Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code,
all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and
development standards for the site.
iii. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density
of the proposed project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is proposed for a 3.1-
acre parcel of land within the Specific Development
Plan No. 43 (SD-43) zoning district. This designation,
as amended, permits the construction of high-rise
condominiums on the site. Therefore, the site has
75C-278
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 3 of 25
been determined to be capable of supporting the type
and density of the proposed project.
iv. The design and improvements of the proposed project will
not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of
this map or by the design and improvements of the
project. Environmental Review No. 2002-215 has
been prepared for this project and has identified
mitigation measures aimed at reducing any
environmental impact associated with this project.
v. The design or improvement6 of the proposed project will not
cause serious public health problems.
The design and improvements associated with this
project have been prepared to comply with minimum
City standards. The street system has been designed
to public street standards and will accommodate
emergency vehicles. All other improvements have
been designed to mitigate any serious problem
resulting from this project.
vi. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not
conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large
for access through or use of property within the proposed
project.
Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 will not
create conflicts with any easements necessary for
public access through the subject property, as no
such easements currently exist. Public access will be
allowed to the site through the entrance and with
homeowner authorization.
E. Applicant has requested approval of Variance No. 2004-11 to reduce the
required setbacks from 30 feet along any street frontage to a 15 foot
setback on Imperial Promenade and a 20-foot setback along MacArthur
Boulevard.
1. The City Council determines that the following findings, which must
be established in order to grant a variance from the provisions of
the Santa Ana Municipal Code, have been established:
I. That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location,
75C-279
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 4 of 25
or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning
ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of
privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and
purpose of the provisions of this chapter.
Due to the unique characteristics of the lot, including
the shape and 10-foot change in grade, the strict
application of the setback requirements would deprive
the lot of development privileges. I n order to
accommodate the required parking for the project, a
parking structure must be provided. The application
of the setback requirement would result in the
removal of parking for the residential development
and a severe parking shortage for the project. The
reduced setback will be mitigated through the addition
and upgrading of architectural and landscape
materials within the remaining setback.
ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial
property rights.
The granting of the setback variance will allow the
applicant the ability to construct two new residential
high-rise towers on a site that is located within a
master planned development.
iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding
property.
The setback variance will not be detrimental to the
surrounding area as the setback will be landscaped to
be compatible with the setbacks of the development.
Further, the setback variance is consistent with a
variance granted in 2000 for the DoubleTree Hotel
located directly west of the project site.
iv. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City.
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect
the City's General Plan in any way as the land use
designation of District Center (DC) encourages the
construction of high intensity land uses such as the
proposed Geneva Commons project.
75C-280
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 5 of 25
F. The Applicant is requesting site plan approval for the project (Site Plan
Review No. 2004-06). The zoning designation for the subject property is
Specific Development Plan No. 43 (SD-43).
1. Section 41-593.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires
review of all plans within a specific development plan area to ensure
the project is in conformity with the Specific Plan.
2. The project is in compliance with all applicable development
standards outlined within the Specific Development Plan (SD-43).
3. The project has been determined to be in compliance with applicable
parking, landscaping and architectural provisions governing the
project, with the exception of the setback which is addressed in
Variance No. 2004-11 above.
Section 2 Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds the project to be consistent with the
purposes of the State Aeronautics Act:
A. How does this project provide for the orderly development of JWA?
1. The City of Santa Ana has considered the long-range development
plans that exist for JWA.
i. The AELUP is not based upon a twenty-year master plan for
JWA. Rather, the ALUC assumes that JWA will continue to
operate the present day levels until at least December 31,
2015. "The Commission assumes that the Airport will
continue to operate in accordance with the JW A Master Plan
until at least 2003. The settlement agreement modifications
were also approved by the two citizens groups which are
signatories to the original 1985 Settlement Stipulation.
These modifications increase the regulated Average Daily
Departures from 73 to 89, and the permitted number of
commercial passenger loading bridges from 14 to 18. This
activity level will continue through, or after, December 31,
2015. John Wayne Airport will be preparing a Master Plan
amendment to reflect these modifications to the settlement
agreement." AELUP Page 19, Section entitled Twenty-Year
Future.
75C-281
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 6 of 25
ii. The project is consistent with the long-range development
plans of JW A 1 and supports development of the airport over
at least the next 20 years.
a) JWA does not have any known plans to expand JWA
within the next twenty-years.
b) JWA did not identify any interference with the present
or planned operation of JW A that would result
because of this project.
c) The ALUC did not provide any factual evidence that
this project is inconsistent with the present operation
of JW A.
(1) On January 15, 2004, the ALUC held a public
meeting on this project. The staff's
recommendation was that the project is
consistent with the AELUP, "providing the
project complies fully with all conditions
required by the FAA," and "provided that a
Notice of Airport in Vicinity is provided to all
future occupants as specified in JWA AELUP
Section 3.3.6." The staff report further stated,
"the project technically represents a compatible
land use in its scope and at its location, and
will be consistent with the Commission's JW A
AELUP."
(2) At the January 15, 2004 hearing, contrary to
ALUC staffs recommendation, the ALUC voted
to approve this project as consistent with the
AELUP, with the added condition that the
project does not exceed 229' AMSL (Above
Mean Sea Level) in height. This condition
imposed by ALUC was not supported by any
findings of fact in the record. Based upon the
unsupported decision, the City of Santa Ana
requested the ALUC reconsider the January
15, 2004 decision regarding this project.
1 The AELUP is not based upon a twenty-year master plan; as such the City of Santa Ana recognizes it
may not be a legally valid comprehensive land use plan. However, since this plan was utilized by ALUC
to determine this project was "inconsistent," the City of Santa Ana will reference the AELUP. By the use
of the AELUP for this limited purpose, the City of Santa Ana does not waive any legal argument or
defense the City may raise regarding the applicability of the AELUP to this or any future projects.
75C-282
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 7 of 25
(3) On March 18, 2004, the ALUC reconsidered
the conditional approval of this project. Once
again, the staff's recommendation was that the
project is consistent with the AELUP,
"providing the project complies fully with all
conditions required by the FAA," and "provided
that a Notice of Airport in Vicinity is provided to
all future occupants as specified in JWA
AELUP Section 3.3.6." "With all due respect
to the Commission and the action it took at its
January 15, 2004 meeting to amend the staff
recommendation of consistency, staff
continues to believe the appropriate
recommendation is a finding of consistency
with the appropriate FAA conditions relating to
lighting and subsequent notice and the state
mandated notice of airport in vicinity. . .."
(4) On March 18, 2004, the ALUC voted to find the
project inconsistent with the AELUP. Not only
was this finding of inconsistency contrary to
staff's recommendation, it was also contrary to
ALUC's January 15, 2004 decision that this
project was conditionally consistent with the
AELUP. The ALUC's March 18,2004 decision
was not supported by any findings of facts
within the record.
(5) As such, the ALUC did not identify any facts to
support the premise that this project would
result in any interference with the long-range
development plans of JW A at either the
January 15, 2004 or the March 18, 2004
meetings.
d) Although the project exceeds the FAR Part 77
obstruction standards, the FAA conducted an
Aeronautical Study of the proposed project and found
the project poses no hazard to air navigation. (Exhibit
A.)
(1) The FAA Aeronautical Study considered and
analyzed the impact on existing and proposed
arrival, departure, and en route procedures for
aircraft operating under both visual flight rules
(VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR).
75C-283
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 8 of 25
(2) The FAA considered and analyzed the impact
on all existing and planned public-use airports,
military airports and aeronautical facilities.
(3) The FAA considered and analyzed the
cumulative impact resulting from the proposed
structure when combined with the impact of
other existing or proposed structures.
(4) The ALUC "considers and recognizes the FAA
as the single 'Authority' for analyzing project
impact on airport or aeronautical operations, or
navigational-aid siting, including interference
with navigation-aids or published flight paths
and procedures." AELUP, 9 2.1.3, Page 14.
e) A Tom Krause Aviation Consulting report entitled
Geneva Commons Aviation Impact Analysis,
Instrument Approach, Departure Procedure and VRF
Analysis of John Wayne Airport (hereinafter "Krause
Analysis") concluded that the project would not pose
an adverse impact on any Instrument Approach
Procedures, Departure Procedures or VFR
Procedures at JWA. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B.)
f) Based on the FAA's Aeronautical Study, the Krause
Analysis, and the lack of factual evidence by JW A or
the ALUC to the contrary, the proposed project:
(1) Is not a hazard to air navigation.
(2) Does not raise the ceiling or visibility minimums
at JW A for an existing or planned instrument
procedure.
(3) Does not result in a loss of JWA's utility.
(4) Does not conflict with the VFR air space use
for the JW A traffic pattern or for en route
navigation to and from JW A.
g) Therefore, based upon the above, this project is
consistent with the safe operations, both existing and
proposed, of JWA. Since JWA has no adopted plans
for expansion of JWA within the next twenty years,
this project is consistent with the long-range
development of JW A.
75C-284
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 9 of 25
2. The land use planning and zoning actions for this project will not
interfere with the approaches to the airport runways.
I. The FAA Aeronautical Study considered and analyzed the
impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en
route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual
flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) and
determined the project to be no hazard to air navigation.
ii. As stated in the Krause Analysis, "[a]lthough the proposed
Geneva Commons buildings will exceed the standards of
FAR Part 77, the building site does not adversely impact any
Instrument Approach Procedures, Departure Procedures or
VFR procedures at John Wayne Airport. The FAA
evaluation found that there would be no significant adverse
effect upon visual Flight rules (VFR) operations, or upon
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, or upon the
operation of an air navigation aid (NAVAID) ifthe building
were built to the height requested in the FAA Form 7460.1.
My study affirms the VFR and IFR operations determination
issued by the FAA." Krause Analysis Section 3.0.
iii. Therefore, since this project is consistent with the long-range
development of JW A, and this project will not interfere with
the approaches to the airport runways, this project will
provide for the orderly development of JW A.
B. How does this project promote the overall goals and objectives of the
California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669?
1. Santa Ana's current Noise Element was adopted in 1982. The
AELUP was amended most recently in 2002. While there are
inconsistencies between the AELUP and Santa Ana's Noise
Element, the inconsistencies are irrelevant to this project. The
inconsistencies are as follows:
i. While similar, the graphic illustrating the noise contour for
JW A in the Noise Element is not identical to the noise
contour in the AELUP. The noise element graphic
illustrating the noise contour for JWA was hand drawn rather
than prepared via the computer as it was in the AELUP.
ii. In the noise element, the maximum acceptable noise level
for high density residential is 70 dB(A) CNEL, while the
AELUP identifies 65 dB (A) CNEL as "normally inconsistent."
Hi. The AELUP states in the description under "Normally
Inconsistent", "[a]1I residential units are inconsistent unless
75C-285
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 10 of 25
are sound attenuated to ensure that the interior CNEL does
not exceed 45 dB, and that all units are indoor oriented so as
to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas."
AELUP, page 22.
iv. The City of Santa Ana has attempted to bring the noise
element into compliance with the AELUP. On March 1,
2004, the City of Santa Ana began amending the Airport
Environs Element, the Noise Element and the Land Use
Element at the request of the ALUC.
v. The City of Santa Ana was working diligently toward the
resolution of the inconsistencies between the AELUP and
the City's Airport Environ's Element, Land Use Element and
Noise Element. For each of these elements, a draft
containing the proposed amendments necessary to become
consistent with the AELUP was prepared. On May 13, 2004,
the City submitted the revised elements to the ALUC for its
review and determination of consistency. Unfortunately, on
August 6, 2004, the City of Santa Ana received
correspondence from Orange County Counsel, counsel for
the ALUC, raising a myriad of issues that, in the City's
opinion, were legally unfounded. On September 16, 2004,
the City sent correspondence to County Counsel addressing
each the issues he had raised. To date, the City has not
received a response to this correspondence. Due to these
issues raised by ALUC via their legal counsel, and the lack
of cooperation by ALUC, the City withdrew the application to
amend the Airport Environs Element, the Noise Element and
the Land Use Element and is awaiting the ALUC to identify
the legally necessary changes for Santa Ana's general plan
to be consistent with the AELUP.
vi. Even though the City of Santa Ana has attempted to resolve
the differences in the general plan and the AELUP, each of
the above inconsistencies is irrelevant to this project for the
following reasons:
a) This project is outside the AELUP's 65 dB (A) CNEL
noise contour, identified as High Noise Impact.
b) Additionally, this project is outside the AELUP's 60 dB
(A) CNEL noise contour, identified as Moderate Noise
Impact.
c) The AELUP requires sound attenuation to ensure that
interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB CNEL. AELUP
75C-286
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 11 of 25
page 22. This project will have an interior noise level
of not more than 42 dB (A) CNEL, which will exceed
the mitigation as required in the AELUP.
d) As such, this project is consistent with the noise
compatibility criteria in the AELUP.
2. The City's noise element policies assure conformance with the
state airport noise standards.
I. The state airport noise standards identify "the acceptable
level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of
airports is hereby established to be a community noise
equivalent level of 65 decibels." Title 21, California Code of
Regulations, Section 5012.
a) This project is outside the AELUP's 65 dB (A) CNEL
noise contour, identified as High Noise Impact.
b) Additionally, this project is outside the AELUP's 60 dB
(A) CNEL noise contour, identified as Moderate Noise
Impact.
ii. The California Code of Regulations permits residential
projects within the 65 dB (A) CNEL noise contour if:
a) "An avigation easement for aircraft noise has been
acquired by the airport proprietor, or . . .
b) The residence is a high rise apartment or
condominium having an interior CNEL of 45 dB or
less in all habitable rooms due to aircraft noise, and
an air circulation or air conditioning system as
appropriate." California Code of Regulations Title 21,
Section 5014 (a)(1) and (3).
iii. Even though this project is not within the 65 CNEL noise
contour, the interior of the units will be mitigated to a level of
42 dB (A) CNEL or less, which exceeds the State-
recommended interior noise standard. Prior to the issuance
of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field-testing in
accordance with Title 25 regulations shall be conducted to
verify compliance with the interior noise standard of 42 dB
(A) CNEL or less.
iv. Additionally, the contract acoustical consultant for JWA, Mr.
Vince Mestre of Mestre-Greve Associates, testified at the
January 15, 2004 ALUC meeting that when all factors are
75C-287
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 12 of 25
considered, the noise level will be higher at the ground level
of the building rather than at the roof of the building. Since
noise at the base of the building will be perceived as noisier,
the fact that this project is a high-rise building is irrelevant to
any airport noise impacts.
v. Therefore, there is no evidence of significant adverse noise
impacts as a result of this project and this project is in
conformance with the state airport noise standards.
3. The mitigation measures for this project will mitigate existing and
foreseeable airport noise problems.
I. The applicant's noise expert, Synectecology, and Mr. Vince
Mestre, JWA's contract acoustical consultant, agreed that it
would be perceived as noisier on the ground than it will be at
the roof of a 250' building at this location.
II. Synectecology states in the noise study prepared for
Geneva Commons development dated August 14, 2003,
"The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles
northwest of the John Wayne International Airport. The
project is located to the west of the established flight path
and is beyond the airport's 60-dBA CNEL noise contour.
Implementation of the proposed project would not expose
the new residents to excessive aircraft noise levels and no
mitigation measures are necessary."
iii. Additionally, any possible impacts will be mitigated by the
following mitigation measures that have been proposed and
agreed to by the applicant.
a) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the
project proponent shall provide evidence to the City of
Santa Ana that a "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity"
(pursuant to Business and Professions Code ~11010)
has been recorded on the deed for each residential
unit and shall remain so recorded so long as the
airport is in operation.
b) The project, as a condition of the Conditional Use
Permit, will have interior noise attenuation to at least
42 dB (A) CNEL.
c) Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and
Occupancy, field-testing in accordance with Title 25
regulations shall be conducted to verify compliance
75C-288
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 13 of 25
with the interior noise standard of 42 dB (A) CNEL or
less.
C. How will this project prevent the creation of new noise and safety
problems?
1. The following measures will be taken to assure that risks - both to
people and property on the ground and to the occupants of aircraft
- associated with the land use proposal are held to a minimum.
i. There are no inconsistencies between the proposed land
use action and safety compatibility criteria in the AELUP.
ii. ALUC's are to be guided by the information contained within
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(hereinafter Handbook), published by the Division of
Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. The
Handbook provides that the ALUC can identify safety
compatibility zones.
a) The only safety compatibility zone adopted by ALUC
is the Runway Protection Zone.
b) The ALUC did not adopt any "Accident Potential
Zones for this airport because none could be justified
with the available data." AELUP Page 18.
c) According to the AELUP, there are no Accident
Potential Zones/Runway Protection Zones within the
City of Santa Ana.
d) As such, the AELUP does not identify any safety
zones that would affect the safety of either people or
property on the ground or occupants of aircraft as a
result of this project.
iii. This project is consistent with the AELUP Land Use policies.
a) The AELUP identifies the General Land Use Policies
as follows: 'Within the boundaries of the AELUP, any
land use may be found to be Inconsistent with the
AELUP which;
(1) Places people so that they are affected
adversely by aircraft noise,
(i) The ALUC did not identify any noise
issues as a result of this project at either
75C-289
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 14 of 25
the January 15, 2004 or the March 18,
2004 meeting.
(ii) As discussed above, this project is not
within either the 65 dB (A) CNEL noise
contour or the 60 dB (A) CNEL noise
contour.
(iii) The contract acoustical consultant for
JWA, Mr. Vince Mestre of Mestre-Greve
Associates, testified at the January 15,
2004 ALUC meeting that when all
factors are considered the noise level
will be higher at the ground level of the
building rather than at the roof of the
building.
(iv) Synectecology states in the noise study
prepared for Geneva Commons
development dated August 14, 2003,
"The project site is located
approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the
John Wayne International Airport. The
project is located to the west of the
established flight path and is beyond the
airport's 60-dBA CNEL noise contour.
Implementation of the proposed project
would not expose the new residents to
excessive aircraft noise levels and no
mitigation measures are necessary."
(v) Moreover, any possible noise issues will
be sufficiently mitigated by the following
mitigation measures such as:
.
The Notice of Airport in the
Vicinity" will be recorded on the
deed for each residential unit and
shall remain so recorded so long
as the airport is in operation.
.
The construction of the units will
exceed the State-recommended
45 dB (A) CNEL interior standard
by being conditioned under the
Conditional Use Permit to have
75C-290
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 15 of 25
an interior noise of 42 dB (A)
CNEL.
(2) Concentrates people in areas susceptible to
aircraft accidents,
(i) ALUC has not adopted any "Accident
Potential Zones for this airport because
none could be justified with the available
data." AELUP Page 18.
(ii) Moreover, Appendix D of the AELUP
does not identify any Accident Potential
Zones/Runway Protection Zones within
the City of Santa Ana.
(iii) Since there are no areas susceptible to
aircraft accidents within Santa Ana, this
project does not concentrate people in
areas susceptible to aircraft accidents.
(3) Permits structures of excessive height in areas
which would affect adversely the continued
operation of the airport, or Permits activities or
facilities that would affect adversely
aeronautical operations." AELUP Section
3.2.1, page 20.
(i) Moreover, as discussed above this
project will not adversely affect the
continued operation of the airport or
aeronautical operations.
(ii) FAA conducted an Aeronautical Study
of the proposed project and determined
this project to be no hazard to air
navigation. As previously stated, the
ALUC considers the FAA to be the
"single 'Authority' for analyzing project
impact on airport or aeronautical
operations, or navigational-aid siting,
including interference with navigation-
aids or published flight paths and
procedures." AELUP page 14.
(iii) The Krause Analysis confirmed the FAA
determination, and found this project will
75C-291
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 16 of 25
not adversely affect any continued
operation of JW A.
(iv) The ALUC did not provide any evidence
that this project would affect the
operation of the airport or aeronautical
operations at either the January 15,
2004 or March 18, 2004 meetings.
(v) Therefore, since this project will not
affect the operation of the airport or
aeronautical operations this project is
not of excessive height.
2. The proposed land use action falls within a level of acceptable risk
considered to be a community norm.
i. Neither the FAA nor the ALUC identified any flight hazards
that will be created as a result of this project.
II. "Off-airport accidents are rare" and "aircraft accidents in the
vicinity of airports are very infrequent occurrences and,
historically, very few people on the ground have been
seriously or fatally injured as a result of such accidents."
Hand book, Page 9-1 .
iii. As discussed above, the AELUP states Accident Potential
Zones could not be justified with the available data.
IV. The FAA conducted an Aeronautical Study of the proposed
project and determined this project posed no hazard to air
navigation.
v. As such, based on the above, all risks fall within a level of
acceptable risk considered to be a community norm.
D. How does this project protect public health, safety, and welfare by
ensuring the orderly expansion of airport?
1. As discussed above, the building will provide for the orderly
development of JW A (See Section I).
2. Moreover, the health, safety and welfare of the public is protected
because this building does not pose any safety or noise impacts.
Any possible impacts have been mitigated with the following
mitigation measure:
75C-292
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 17 of25
i. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project
proponent shall provide evidence to the City of Santa Ana
that a "Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" has been recorded on
the deed for each residential unit and shall remain so
recorded so long as the airport is in operation.
ii. The construction of the units will exceed the State-
recommended 45 dB (A) CNEL interior standard by being
conditioned under the Conditional Use Permit to have an
interior noise of 42 dB (A) CNEL.
E. How does this project minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses?
1 . The existing noise and safety hazards are not excessive, and the
actions taken by the City of Santa Ana "prevent the creation of new
noise and safety problems."
I. This area is already devoted to high-rise office towers. This
project does not create any new noise and safety problems.
a) Noise
(1) This project is outside the AELUP's 65 dB (A)
CNEL noise contour, identified as High Noise
Impact.
(2) Additionally, this project is outside the AELUP's
60 dB (A) CNEL noise contour, identified as
Moderate Noise Impact.
(3) Moreover, the above following mitigation
measures eliminate the creation of new noise
problems:
(i) The Notice of Airport in the Vicinity" will
be recorded on the deed for each
residential unit and shall remain so
recorded so long as the airport is in
operation.
(ii) The construction of the units will exceed
the State-recommended 45 dB (A)
CNEL interior standard by being
conditioned under the Conditional Use
Permit to have an interior noise of 42 dB
(A) CNEL.
75C-293
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 18 of 25
b) Safety
(1) As previously discussed, both the FAA and the
Krause Analysis have determined this building
to not be a hazard to air navigation.
(2) ALUC has not identified any safety concerns
that will arise as a result of this project.
F. The amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 has been filed
with the City of Santa Ana seeking to allow the construction of a Starbucks
with drive-through window service at 2701 North Bristol Street. Pursuant
to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-365.5 eating establishments with
drive-through window service are permitted uses subject to the issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City
Council to grant a conditional use permit upon making certain
findings.
i. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
the community?
The proposed Starbucks with drive-through window
service will provide a service to the community by
providing an additional restaurant opportunity in the
area. Additionally, the drive-through lane will provide
an added convenience to customers using the coffee
house.
ii. Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the
particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the
vicinity?
The proposed Starbucks coffee house will not be
detrimental to persons residing and working in the
area as the on-site vehicular circulation system is
designed to avoid conflicts on-and off-site. A
combination of berms and hedges will be provided in
the front yard setback area along the Bristol Street
frontage to screen the drive-through aisle and reduce
glare. The on-site circulation will allow additional
stacking within the site thereby avoiding impacts to
Memory Lane and the vicinity.
75C-294
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 19 of 25
iii. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties
surrounding the area?
The proposed project complies with Policy 2.5 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan as it provides
the economic benefits of commercial development to
the City without impacting the quality of life for
surrounding residents. The Starbucks coffee house
with drive-through window service will generate City
tax revenue and employment in the community. The
use provides services that compliment surrounding
businesses and, as conditioned, will not adversely
affect economic development or stability of the area.
IV. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in this chapter for such use.
The proposed Starbucks coffee house with drive-
through window service will be in compliance with the
applicable sections of Chapter 41 of the Municipal
Code. The use will also comply with all applicable
county and state provisions, including health codes
and ADA requirements.
v. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or
any specific plan of the City?
The proposed Starbucks coffee house with drive-
through window service is in an area designated
General Commercial (GC) in the General Plan. The
project complies with the Land Use Element and
Urban Design Element of the General Plan and will
not negatively affect them. Lastly, the use is
consistent with the Community Commercial (C1)
zoning district that allows retail and service uses.
G. Variance No. 2004-05 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana seeking to
allow the reduction of the off-street parking requirement by of 52 parking
spaces.
1. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the City
Council to grant a variance upon making certain findings.
I. That because of special circumstances applicable to the
subject property, including size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning
ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of
75C-295
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 20 of 25
privileges not otherwise at minor exception with the intent
and purpose of the provisions of this Chapter.
There are special circumstances applicable to the
subject property. The subject site is located on the
northeast corner of Bristol Street and Memory Lane,
which is a contained site surrounded by an existing
commercial development. The number of parking
spaces provided will be sufficient since the site will
share parking with the Floral Park Promenade.
Based on the Shared Parking Analysis, there will be
sufficient parking for peak parking demand for both
the new restaurant commercial development and the
existing shopping center.
ii. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial
property rights.
The granting of a variance is necessary to develop
the property with a well-designed commercial
development that is consistent with the Community
Commercial (C1) zoning district and provides
restaurant uses. Without the reduction in the required
parking, the project site would not be able to support
an economically viable development. Policy 2.2 of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan supports
commercial development that accommodates the
City's needs for goods and services.
iii. That the granting of a variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding
property.
The granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
surrounding property because the proposed
commercial development complies with all
development standards set forth in Chapter 41 of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code including setbacks and
landscaping. Lastly, a reduction of 52 required
parking stalls would be offset by the sharing of
parking stalls with the existing Floral Park Promenade
to the north.
IV. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City.
75C-296
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 21 of 25
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City since the proposed
development is designed in conformance with the C1
zoning district development standards and General
Plan requirements. Policy 2.5 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan states that new
development must balance the economic and fiscal
benefits of commercial development with its impacts
on the quality of life in the City. The reduction in the
number of required parking will not negatively affect
the surrounding commercial or residential properties.
Section 3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation
monitoring program, Environmental Review No. 2004-215, prepared with respect to this
Project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence
presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a
mitigation negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program adequately
addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. On the basis of this
review, the City Council finds that there is no evidence from which it can be fairly argued
that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City
Council hereby certifies and approves the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation
monitoring program and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed
with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations ("CCR") 9 735.5(c)(1), the City
Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the ecological habitat upon which wildlife resources depend. The proposed project
exists in an urban environment characterized by paved concrete, roadways, surrounding
buildings and human activity. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 9 711.2 and
Title XIV, CCR 9 735.5(a)(3), the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not
required in conjunction with this project.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana after conducting the public
hearing hereby approves:
A. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 as conditioned in Exhibit "c"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
B. Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-05 as conditioned in Exhibit liD"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
C. Variance No. 2004-11 as conditioned in Exhibit "E" attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
D. Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 as conditioned in Exhibit "F"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
75C-297
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 22 of 25
The City Council of the City of Santa Ana also finds that the project is consistent
with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et.
seq.
These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid
hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated
April 4, 2005 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all
of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. The City Council has read and considered Resolution No. CRA
2005-001 of the City of Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency, which is
incorporated herein by this reference. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 33445,
the City Council hereby consents to the construction and installation project described in
this Resolution and the use of Agency project specific tax increment, in an amount not
to exceed $5 million to pay for said project. The City Council authorizes the City
Manager and Clerk to execute the Cooperative Agreement for Offsite Improvements
upon approval, if any, of the proposed Nexus project. The City Council finds that:
A. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana
(hereinafter referred to as the "Agency") is engaged in activities necessary
to execute and implement the Redevelopment Plan for the South Main
Redevelopment Project Area (the Redevelopment Plan").
B. In order to implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency has agreed,
subject to the approval of the City Council, to contingently approve a
Cooperative Agreement for Offsite Improvements between itself, the City
of Santa Ana, Sandpointe Neighborhood Association, Inc., a California,
non-profit public benefit and federal 501 (c)(3) corporation ("Sandpointe"),
the Nexus Development Corporation/Central Division, Inc. a California
corporation and The Grand Plan 2, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company (collectively referred to herein as "Nexus"), and Coastal Rim
Properties, Inc., a California corporation ("Geneva Commons") (hereafter
"the Agreement").
C. The Agreement contains all of the provisions, terms, conditions and
obligations required by the state and local laws.
D. The Agreement provides, that if the Nexus and Geneva Commons
projects receive all discretionary approvals from the City Council, that the
Agency will commit up to $5 million in project specific tax increment to
construct underground utilities on portions of Main Street, MacArthur
Boulevard, and Sunflower Avenue (hereinafter "the undergrounding
project"). If no event, however, will the Agency be obliged to spend more
than the $5 million in undergrounding on these three street segments.
E. Portions of the undergrounding project are not within a Project Area, but
the existing above-ground utility lines are visible from the South Main
75C-298
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 23 of 25
Project Area and constitute a blighted condition. The City Council further
finds that the undergrounding project is of benefit to the project area
and/or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located.
F. The City Council further finds that no other reasonable means of financing
the undergrounding project are available to the community. The City has
adopted thirty-six undergrounding districts and Rule 20A funds available to
the City for the foreseeable future have been committed to other
undergrounding projects of higher priority. The undergrounding project
would not involve a major street project, as is typical of approved City
undergrounding districts, and a portion of the affected street segments
contain high energy 66 KV lines that are more expensive to underground
than utility lines on other City arterials.
G. Nothing herein in intended, nor shall it be interpreted, as a pre-commitment
or approval of the proposed entitlements for the proposed Nexus project in
South MacArthur Place, in that the Council's findings and approval are made
contingently.
Section 6. This Resolution shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance
No. NS-2681 becomes effective. If said ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise do not
go into effect for any reason, then this resolution shall be null and void and have no further
force and effect.
Section 7. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana
is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the
Council's decision and these findings.
ADOPTED this
day of April, 2005
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
75C-299
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 24 of 25
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney
By:
Kylee O. Otto
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Council members
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the
attached Resolution No. 2005-040 to be the original resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
75C-300
Resolution No. 2005-
Page 25 of 25
GENEVA COMMONS AVIATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Instrument Approach, Departure Procedure
and VFR Analysis of John Wayne Airport
3 NOVEMBER, 2004 Orig
(Revision 1, dtd 11/10/04)
Prepared by
Tom Krause Aviation Consulting
EXHIBIT A
75C-301
Table of Contents
1.0 General Information ............................................................................2
1.1 Introduction........................ ......... ...... ................................ .......................3
1.2 Background and Terminology................................................................. 3
1.3 Approach Procedu res ......................................................... ..................... 4
1.3.1 Precision Approach Procedures ..........................................................4
1 .3.2 - 1.3.4 Non-Precision Approach Procedures...................................5
2.0 Analysis....................... ......................... ..................... ........ ...6
2.1 Scope of Analysis ..... ............... ...................................... .......................... 6
2.2 Precision Approach (R19L) ..................................................................... 6
2.3 Non-precision Approaches ............. ................................... .....................6
2.3.1 Circling Procedures..... ............ ....... ......... ...... .......... ........... ............. ...6
2.4 Departure Procedu res........................... ................................... ................8
2.5 Circling vs VFR........................................................................... 7
2.6 .....................................................................................................................
3.0 Summary............................................................... ......... ......9
Attachments
A. FAA Directives, Regulations and Other FAA Related References..9
B. Thomas Krause Qualifications.......................................................... 1 0
C. Graphic of SNA......................... .................................. ........................12
D. FAA Obstruction Evaluation............................................... ............13
2
75C-302
1.0 General Information
1.1 Introduction
Tom Krause Aviation Consulting was retained by the Geneva Commons proponent to
assess any impacts the proposed buildings may have on Aviation Safety. The
assessment was conducted primarily for two purposes. The first objective was to verify
Air Safety in connection with the FAA Part 77 Obstruction Evaluation study and the
second was to put the FAA Part 77 study in perspective regarding the Geneva
Commons building. Although the FAA issued a determination of no aeronautical hazard
for the Geneva Commons area, last March the ALUC found the building to be
inconsistent with AELUP.
The instrument analysis is based, in part, on application of current United States
standards for instrument procedures developed under Part 97 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR Part 97)(FAR). These standards are applied by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in developing approach or departure procedures, or in
conducting Part 77 obstruction evaluations. These standards are specified in FAA
Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
and in FAR Part 77, Obiects AffectinQ Navioable Airspace. Information on man-made
obstructions was obtained from National Ocean Service's national database for man-
made obstructions. The terrain information was obtained from 1 :24000 topographic
quadrangle charts and the 2002 Santa Ana International Airport Obstruction Chart (OC)
along with digital data from the 2001 OC survey.
It should be noted that every effort was made to use available obstacle data and current
FAA criteria and regulations for the Instrument Approach Procedure analysis. However,
the consultant cannot be responsible for obstacles that may be discovered later as a
result of new surveys or unreported man-made objects that are unknown, or other
constraints that may increase heights or otherwise adversely impact the results present
in this study.
1.2 Background and Terminology
The ability to conduct takeoffs and landings during periods of reduced visibility or
inclement weather is an important factor at commercial airports. Instrument flight rules
(IFR) weather conditions are defined as periods when the cloud ceiling is less than
1,000 feet above ground or the prevailing visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states that if a landing is to be made
at an airport during IFR conditions, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is
necessary, aircraft shall follow a FAA standard instrument approach procedure (SlAP)
that is prescribed for the airport. An aircraft cannot land when the in-flight visibility is
lower than the minimum specified in the SlAP.
As part of its mandate to promote the safe and efficient use of airspace, the FAA is
responsible for establishing and approving terminal instrument procedures at civil
3
75C-303
airports. The FAA Orders referenced above contain criteria utilized by FAA to
formulate, review, approve and publish instrument approach and departure procedures
for airports and runways. These procedures are developed to ensure that aircraft are
provided safe clearance over man-made or natural obstacles when flying during IFR
weather conditions. Additional obstacle clearance is built into instrument procedures
that are developed for airports located in and near mountains or other precipitous
terrain.
The procedures utilized by FAA for Flight Procedure analysis, development and OE
evaluations are specified in AIRSPACE AND PROCEDURES, (FAA OrderA8260.19C).
Chapter 5 of 8260.19 addresses Obstruction Evaluations (OE). See attachment (D).
The FAA through their regulatory procedures has already determined that neither the
instrument approach or departure procedures are impacted by the proposed Geneva
Commons projects.
This independent Geneva Commons analysis presented herein is based on the existing
FAA IFR procedures and re-evaluated for POTENTIAL IMPACT on Instrument
approach procedures to Runways 19R/L and 01 R/L. Likewise, departures were
evaluated using current FAA Departure Procedures published for John Wayne Airport,
(SNA). The criteria used is the same as the FAA is supposed to use in its
determinations.
1.3 Approach Procedures
An instrument approach procedure can be classified as precision or non-precision. A
precision approach provides electronic glide path (vertical guidance) in addition to
directional information to the pilot, whereas a non-precision approach provides only
directional guidance. A precision approach provides the information via navigational
aids to ensure that an aircraft is at a specific altitude at a specific point. Vertical
guidance provided in a precision approach allows descent to a lower altitude than a
non-precision approach. For a non-precision approach, a barometric altimeter is used
for vertical (descent) information. Barometric altimeter settings involve readings of
elevation above Mean Sea Level (MSL).
1.3.1 Precision Approach Procedures
The term DNDH (decision altitude/decision height) refers to the decision point on a
precision approach at which a decision must be made during a precision approach to
either continue the landing maneuver or execute a missed approach. The term decision
altitude (DA) is the height above mean sea level (MSL) of the decision point for a
Category I approach. The term decision height (DH) is the height above threshold for a
Category 11/111 approach at which a decision must be made to either continue the landing
maneuver or execute a missed approach. FAR Part 91.175 requires that an instrument
approach descent may not continue below the DNDH unless:
(i) The aircraft is in a position to make a normal approach to the runway; and,
4
75C-304
(ii) The approach threshold for that runway, or approach lights or other markings
identifiable with the approach end of the runway, are clearly visible to the pilot.
Precision approaches are categorized based on decision DA/DH and the horizontal
visibility that pilot has along the runway. Visibility is expressed in statute miles or in
terms of runway visual range (RVR) values, stated in feet, when RVR equipment is
installed on a runway. A Category I (CAT I) ILS is capable of providing an approach to
a decision height as low as 200 feet above the threshold and a standard visibility not
less than one-half statute mile or a RVR of not less than 1800 feet.
1.3.2 Non-Precision Approach Procedures
Non-precision approaches are categorized as straight-in or circling. Straight-in
approaches are based on course guidance that is generally aligned with the centerline
of the runway. Additionally, the descent gradient from the minimum altitude to the
runway must still be within set limits. Circling approaches are generally designed when
the instrument approach is not aligned with the runway or when maximum descent
gradients are exceeded. As such, straight-in approaches usually permit descent to a
lower altitude than circling approaches.
A circling approach is a maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with a runway
for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument is not possible or is not
desirable. Circling minimums are a statement of MDA and visibility required for the
circle-to-Iand maneuver. Descent below the established MDA or DH is not authorized
during an approach unless the aircraft is in a position from which a normal approach to
the runway of intended landing can be made and adequate visual reference to required
visual cues is maintained.
1.3.3
Departure Procedures
Standard instrument takeoff minimums and departure procedures are prescribed in FAR
Part 91.175. Obstacle clearance is based on the aircraft climbing at least 200 feet per
nautical mile, crossing the end of the runway at least 35 feet AGL, and climbing to 400
feet above airport elevation before turning unless otherwise specified in the procedure.
A published IFR departure procedure is required whenever obstacles in the departure
area preclude an aircraft from climbing out at a standard rate climb gradient of 200 feet
per nautical mile and proceeding in any direction after take-off, (diverse departure).
Departure procedures are designed to assist pilots in conducting IFR flight while safely
avoiding obstacles during climb out to a Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA). IFR
departure procedures specify minimum climb rates and routes to avoid obstacles.
The analysis of departure procedures is based on standards contained in FAA Order
8260.3B. The TERPS IFR departure criteria are predicated on normal aircraft
operations, Le., all-engines running.
5
75C-305
1.3.4 Proposed Instrument Approaches
As of November 3,2004, there were no proposed new approaches to John Wayne
Airport. (source: Aviation System Standards [AVN] web site,
http://avn .faa.qov/acifp.asp).
2.0 Analysis
2.1 Scope of Analysis
The following Instrument Approach, Missed Approach, and Departure Procedures were
evaluated with respect to the Geneva Commons proposed elevations and location:
SNA Instrument Approach Procedures
ILS Rwy 19L; LOC (Back Course) Rwy 1 L; LDA Rwy 19R; RNAV (GPS) Rwy 1 L; RNAV
(GPS) Rwy 19R; NDB Rwy 1L; NDB Rwy 19R.
SNA Departure Procedures
DUUKE RNAV ONE DEPARTURE; ANAHEIM THREE DEPARTURE; CHANNEL ONE
DEPARTURE; DUUKE ONE DEPARTURE; Published IFR Departure.
Local VFR procedures
2.2 Precision Approach (ILS R19L)
Geneva Commons is located well outside the ILS obstruction trapezoids. It is located
6876' (1.3 SM) from the R19R Threshold and 3200' (0.53 SM) from the ILS Centerline.
Additionally, it is located more than 1,000' from the extremity edge of the ILS trap, 0.19
sm. Therefore, Geneva Commons will not impact these approaches or be considered a
hazard to Air Navigation. (Please see attachment C).
2.3 Non-Precision Approaches
Geneva Commons will not adversely impact any of the non-precision approaches to
either Runways 01 Lor 19R at the maximum building elevation of 287'MSL (including
any future appurtenances) of 310 feet AMSL. The FAA Western Pacific Flight
Procedures Office had already determined that there would be no impacts when the
determination of no hazard was issued. The proposed building sites are located at the
extremity of the LDA R19R transitional surface. There will be no impact to the LDA
approach with the buildings constructed at the site as indicated in the Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1).
6
75C-306
The RNAV procedure to R19R could be impacted if the buildings exceed 310' feet MSL.
The proposed buildings are located in the primary area of the RNAV, however the
current FAA published minimums are adequate and will not require any changes. One
consideration that must be addressed is FAR Part 77.15. Part 77.15 does not require a
person to notify the Administrator for the construction of any antenna structure of 20 feet
or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure.
A 20 foot addition to the building elevation would make the total elevation of the building
287'+20' = 307'. Therefore, the building's maximum elevation including any 20 foot
antenna will not exceed 310' feet MSL. The 310' elevation is the maximum altitude
permitted in this area by the RNAV approach without requiring a change to the
procedures minimum altitudes.
The runway 01 L Localizer Back course missed approach procedure will not be impacted
by the Geneva Commons Building. The current missed approach calls for a "Climb to
800, then climbing left turn to 2300 via SLI R-120 to SLI VORTAC." The missed
approach location is 0.7 nautical miles south of the R01 L threshold at an altitude of 480'
MSL. Even a minimally performing aircraft climbing at the minimum rate of 200' per
nautical mile will commence their turns within two miles from the missed approach point,
more than a mile prior to the Geneva Commons Site. Even if the missed approach
aircraft failed to turn but proceeded straight ahead the aircraft would be above 1000'
MSL by the time they were abeam Geneva Commons.
2.3.1 Circling Procedures
Circling approaches were evaluated for the established Instrument Approach
Procedures at SNA. The lowest circling minimums were found on the RNAV (GPS)
R19R and RNAV (GPS) R1 L approaches. The minimum descent altitude for the
approaches was 640 feet MSL with 1 statute mile visibility for Aircraft categories A & B;
1 12 miles for Category C; and 2 miles for Category D aircraft.
The FAA used the highest obstacle in the protected circling area to determine the
proper minimums. In this case, the 321 foot Center Tower is the controlling obstacle
that was used by the FAA, (Source: FAA Form 8260.9 on file at Sacramento Flight
I nspection Office). The tower is located 6000 feet North/Northwest of R 19L. The
minimum required obstacle clearance for a circling procedure is 300 feet. In this case
the building height of 321 feet MSL plus 300 feet = 621. This figure is then rounded up
to the nearest 20' increment therefore providing the 640' MSL circling MDA. A taller
structure, 323 feet MSL, is located at South Coast Plaza, (Source; 2002 Obstruction
Chart). However, the minimum altitude for circling remains at 640'MSL due to the
aforementioned rounding.
The proposed Geneva structure at an elevation of 287' feet MSL and 6876' (1.3 SM)
feet from R19L will not impact the circling procedure. The Center Tower at 321' MSL as
well as the South Coast Plaza at 323'MSL are higher and control the MDA for the
lowest circling minimums at SNA.
7
75C-307
2.4 Departure Procedures
Instrument Departures
The current FAA published Departure Procedure for John Wayne Airport requires all
aircraft to climb runway heading to 700 and then make a left turn (R01 L) or a right turn
(R19R) direct Seal Beach VORTAC. The turns are commenced at an altitude well
above the proposed Geneva Commons building therefore not imposing any impact on
departing aircraft.
The Anaheim Three Departure requires a turn to 330 degrees after takeoff from R01 L.
However, the aircraft is not supposed to commence a turn prior to reaching 400 feet
above field elevation. Field elevation is 56 feet MSL therefore the aircraft should not
turn prior to reaching 456 feet MSL. This far exceeds the minimum altitude required by
the FAA TERPS Departure criteria to clear any building within the Geneva Commons
area. This is another reason that FAA has provided for a determination of no adverse
impact.
The CHANNEL ONE, DUUKE ONE and MUSEL SIX Departures all depart to the South
from R19R and therefore are not impacted by the proposed buildings.
2.5 Circling vs VFR Considerations
A circling approach to either R01L or R19R is possible with visibilities as low as 1
statute mile and ceilings as low as 600' AGL above the airport. These circling
minimums are significantly lower than VFR requirements of 1000' AGL and 3 miles
visibility. The FAA circling minimums put the aircraft closer to the ground and buildings
in poor weather conditions than operations under VFR. And yet, the FAA has
determined that obstruction clearance requirements are safe and that the circling
minimums at John Wayne likewise are safe. My evaluation affirms the FAA findings.
The proposed Geneva Commons building site is located 6,876 feet (1.3 sm) north of the
end of R19R. The proposed building is neither located on the final approach nor in
close proximity to the VFR traffic pattern to Runway 19R. The impacts of penetrations
are minor compared to other buildings within the airport area.
The minimum R19R VFR traffic pattern altitudes are: 1054 MSL for small aircraft, 1554
MSL for turbine aircraft over 12,500#, (Source: Airnav.com). The minimum R19L VFR
traffic pattern altitudes are: Small Single engine aircraft: 854' MSL, Twin engine aircraft:
1054' MSL, Turbine aircraft: 1554' MSL (Source, John Wayne Airport Pilot Information
Guide).
The proposed building is located 6876' from R19R at an elevation of 287' MSL. Aircraft
on a right downwind to R19R already have a 323' MSL building and 321' MSL building
in its downwind and/or base turn area (OBS 8-323_and 7-321). In addition, most VFR
traffic from the North/Northwest will be following the 405 freeway for their base to the
8
75C-308
appropriate runway 19L or 19R. This is located well inside the proposed building site.
This puts the VFR aircraft approximately 1600' north of the runway ends while the
Geneva Commons site is located 6,800' north.
3.0 Summary
Although the proposed Geneva Commons buildings will exceed the standards of FAR
PART 77, the building site does not adversely impact any Instrument Approach
Procedures, Departure Procedures or VFR procedures at John Wayne Airport at the
maximum AMSL altitude the proponent has chosen. The FAA evaluation found that
there would be no significant adverse effect upon visual Flight rules (VFR) operations,
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, or upon the operation of an air navigation aid
(NAVAl D) if the building were built to the height requested in the FAA Form 7460-1. My
study affirms the VFR and IFR operations determination issued by FAA.
9
75C-309
Attachment (A)
FAA Directives. Regulations and Other FAA Related References used in this Study
FAA ORDER 8260.3B - UNITED STATES STANDARD FOR TERMINAL INSTRUMENT
PROCEDURES (TERPS)
FAA ORDER 8260.19C - FLIGHT PROCEDURES AND AIRSPACE
FAA ORDER 8260.38A - CNIL UTILIZATION OF GLOBAL POSITIONING
SYSTEM(GPS)
FAA ORDER 8260.48 - AREA NAVIGATION (RNA V) APPROACH CONSTRUCTION
CRITERIA
FAA No. 405 - STANDARDS FOR AERONAUTICAL SURVEYS and related products
FAA Order 7400.2E - PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING AIRSPACE MATTERS
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION: PART 157 - NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION,
ALTERATION, ACTN ATION, AND DEACTIVATION OF AIRPORTS
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: PART 77 - OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE
AIRSPACE
FAA FORMS 8260 - 3; 8260 - 5,8260 - 9 FOR ILS, LDA AND RNA V TO RUNWAY 19R
AT SANTA ANA/JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR, AC: 150/5190-4A: A MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE TO
LIMIT HEIGHT OF OBJECTS AROUND AIRPORTS
FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR, AC: 70/7460-2J
FAA FORMS 7460-1 PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO FAA FOR THE TWO BUILDING
SITES
2002 AIRPORT OBSTRUCTION CHART - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT; OC 377
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL
- Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and A TC Procedures
10
75C-310
Attachment (B)
THOMAS E. KRAUSE
Mr. Krause is a specialist in Instrument Flight Procedures
feasibility, design and development and obstacle evaluations. His
qualifications include over 20 years with FAA, with 17 years in
Flight Inspection and Flight Procedures Development including
the design of Instrument approach and noise abatement
procedures for Reno/Tahoe and Reno/Stead airports, Nevada;
the re-use plan for the decommissioned El Toro MCAS; original
feasibility and subsequent development for Federal Express of a
Special TLS procedure to Subic Bay, Phillipines. Other experience
includes Noise Abatement, Instrument Approach and Departure
analysis and feasibility studies. He was an Air Force Pilot from
1970-1975, Air National Guard Pilot from 1975-1981, and FAA Air
Traffic Controller from 1977-1980. He was an FAA professional
pilot from 1980 -1997. During this period he flew more than 3000
Instrument Approach and Departure procedures to assure
compliance with the National Airspace system and to evaluate
facility performance.
Relevant Project Experience
Flight Operations Chief for Flight Inspection Frankfurt,
Germany. Supervised pilots and Airborne Technicians;
directed the Flight Inspection activities for the Frankfurt
Flight Inspection Field Office. Provided Flight Inspection
coordination and briefings with the Directors of Aviation
of the various countries. Conducted Pilot Flight Checks to
assure compliance and ability.
Worked on the Headquarters staff at Oklahoma City, OK.
Conducted FAA pilot flight checks, and conducted office
evaluations to determine compliance with FAA
Headquarters policy and objectives. Performed
Contracting Officers representative duties for Flight
Inspection and Instrument Flight Procedures training.
Developed Flight Procedure and Flight Inspection training
courses for all field personnel.
Performed enroute and Terminal Instrument Approach
Procedures checks throughout the United States including
Hawaii and Alaska.
The Oklahoma assignment was a Washington, D.C.level
assignment which involved frequent interface with other
75C-311
Education
Wisconsin State University,
1965 -1969
University of Northern
California Law School,
1992-1995; Juris Doctor
Degree - Member of
California State Bar #189100
Training
USAF Pilot Training
Reese AFB, Lubbock, TX,
1970-1971
Air Traffic Controller
Training, Oklahoma City,
OK,
1977
Airspace Systems
Inspection Pilot Training
and Flight Procedures
Training, 1980
Arctic Survival Training to
determine feasibility of
FAA Flight Crews
increasing their safety level.
Certificates and Licenses
Airline Transport Pilot -
# 1077248
Certified FAA Flight
Inspection Pilot
California State Bar
#189100
FAA Headquarters personnel and Aviation directors from various countries.
Flight Procedures supervisor and manager- Responsible for Instrument Flight procedure
development and coordination for nine western states. This office is located in
Sacramento, CA.
Flight Procedures Office in the Northwest Mountain Region-
Acted as the FAA Flight Procedures liaison with
the Aviation Directors for the states of Colorado, Utah
and Wyoming. Provided feasibility studies
for various Instrument Approach Procedures, coordinated
closely with cities such as Salt Lake City to determine
preferred Traffic Flows. Worked closely with Salt Lake
City and the 2002 Olympic Committee to determine the
best locations in regards to arrival and departure routes
for heliports and aircraft in support of the 2002 Olympics.
Independent Aviation Consultant Independent Contractor
Since leaving FAA in 1997 Tom has performed the activities
identified in the opening paragraph plus additional feasibility
analyses and appropriate coordination. He also operates a Law
office representing low income clients. His main interest
obviously involves aviation. He still knows and coordinates
with many of the FAA personnel that are still in the FAA.
In addition, any independent contractors that he might use for
assistance in any given project have at least as good of
qualifications as he does.
12
75C-312
OWER .
I
., I.
-
AUL. .
-lf~'I~;;;"a:...-X2'iMSC' 2~. ~OA.~TI
· . ~~ QE~~~~n~Sc~~~Gg
, 10:'.:
_ _ _RD.}' -
Attachment C
..
';:
\'1
'II
<I: - - - ~".II.- ~'~
... -... 1- - - 1--
~ ... --110.. -
\~ - I -. :I ja
. II .. II iii Ii i:'lI~ j!
..\....
. \
,L.-.r;'~~'
...
,'" .I,"
....
,~
~ *"4
# . ~
^',::/
, ..
13
75C-313
Attachment (D)
FAA ORDER 8260.19@AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION EVALUATION Discussion
GENERAL
14 CFR Part 77 requires that the Administrator be notified prior to the construction or
alteration of structures which might present a hazard to flight. Form 7460-1, Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, is the medium for that notification of construction
or alteration.
RESPONSIBILITY AND PROCESSING OF FAA FORM 7460-1
The regional ATD (Air Traffic Division) has the responsibility to process all Forms 7460-
1 in accordance with 14 CFR Part 77 and FAA Order 7400.2, PROCEDURES FOR
HANDLING AIRSPACE MATTERS. In this regard, AVN-100 (Aviation System
Standards Flight Procedures Branch) shall ensure that a complete evaluation of the
effect the proposed construction or alteration will have on IFR aircraft operations,
including the visual portion of an IFR procedure, is provided to Air Traffic. AVN-
100 shall also assist Air Traffic in reconciling possible discrepancies in IFR findings
made by military services. Additionally, the Regional Flight Standards Division (FSD),
All Weather Operations Program Manager, shall serve as the focal point for assessing
VFR operational impact. Initial impact assessments should be made by the Flight
Procedures Office (FPO) and FSD.1
TERMINAL AREA IFR OPERATIONS
A VN-1 00 shall assess the effect upon terminal area I FR operations to include
approach/departure procedures, transitions, radar vectoring charts, holding patterns,
and STARS. The study should assess the effect upon any segment of an existing or
proposed instrument approach/departure procedure and any restrictions.
If the proposed construction or alteration will have an adverse effect on VFR or IFR
aircraft operations, procedures, or minimum IFR flight altitudes, AVN-100 and Flight
Standards evaluations should clearly state the extent of these effects. Air Traffic is
responsible for making the final determination of whether adverse impacts are
substantial or minimal.
NOTE REGARDING FLIGHT INSPECTION AIRCRAFT AND OE ANALYSIS
Flight Inspection aircraft do not go to check out a building after it is built. Flight
Inspection aircraft perform initial and periodic inspections of all instrument procedures in
conjunction with the inspection of the supporting navigational aid. Flight Inspection
checks out new and revised instrument approach procedures prior to the procedures
I All references are made to selected portions of FAA Order 8260.19C that direct certain specific actions of the
different entities involved in the OE Evaluation Process.
14
75C-314
being published to verify controlling obstructions and to verify flyability along with the
overall performance of the procedure.
The basic procedural analysis regarding a proposed building is accomplished during the
ground level evaluation based upon the sound, efficient check of the potential impacts
on the various procedures at any particular airport. The same criteria and methodology
is used by the Flight Procedures Office for an OE evaluation as is used in developing an
original or revised instrument procedure.
15
75C-315
ADDENDUM TO to REVISION 1 OF THE
GENEVA COMMONS AVIATION
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Instrument Approach, Departure Procedure
and VFR Analysis of John Wayne Airport
3 NOVEMBER, 2004 Orig
(Revision 1, dtd 11/10/04)
Addendum dated 14 November, 2004
Prepared by
Tom Krause Aviation Consulting
75C-316
Instrument Approach, Departure and VFR Analysis
SNA Airport
GENEVA COMMONS
Table of Contents
I. General Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. ILS Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
III. Localizer Back Course R01 L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
IV. Conclusion. ........ ....... ........ .... .... ........... ......3
EXHIBITS
A. Aerial View with Traps and new location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Topographic Chart with ILS obstacle clearance surfaces. . . . . . . . . . . .5
C. TERPS ILS Obstacle Clearance Surface Depiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1
75C-317
I. GENERAL DISCUSSION
This addendum is to expand on the earlier report submitted on November 10, 2004 showing that
the Geneva Commons Building project will not adversely effect the instrument procedures at SNA.
It is to address some concerns that have been expressed about buildings in the location of the
Geneva Commons project.
Part 77 surfaces are advisory in nature and provide the requirements for submission of Notices of
Proposed Construction or Alteration, Form 7460-1. If the object exceeds a height or surface
defined in Subpart C of FAR Part 77, it would be an obstruction and would be the subject of an
aeronautical study by the FAA to determine its effect on navigable airspace. If the object is
concluded to have a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient utilization of such
airspace, it would be determined to be a hazard to air navigation.
In the Obstacle Analysis and Determination of No Hazard1 of the Geneva Commons site, the FAA
determined that the building would not constitute a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and
efficient utilization of such airspace. Our independent analysis concluded the same.
As part of the FAA's aeronautical determination an analysis is made as to any impact to Instrument
procedures at the effected airport. The reason for this analysis is that the United States Standard
for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) surfaces is more restrictive than Part 77, and TERPS
surfaces are regulatory. Therefore, any penetrations of the applicable TERPS surfaces would
adversely impact the instrument procedure and require a modification or nullification of the
procedure if such object were allowed to be built depending on the amount of penetration and any
mitigating factors.
In the present case, there is neither any impact to any of the instrument procedures at John Wayne
Airport from the Geneva Commons building site nor does the building penetrate any of the
regulatory TERPS obstacle clearance surfaces.
II. ILS ANALYSIS
There appears to be some concern from the ALCU staff on potential impacts of the Geneva
building on the ILS to Runway 19R at John Wayne Airport. As pointed out in the above discussion,
and readily viewable in diagrams A and B, the proposed building site is located well outside the ILS
TERPS surfaces. The proposed Geneva Commons building sits approximately 1300 feet outside
the nearest edge of the ILS trapezoid.
Precision (ILS) Final Approach obstruction clearance surfaces are as depicted in Diagram B. The
"Y", "X" and "W" obstacle clearance surface (OCS) dimensions are as specified in diagram B.
There are many additional formulae utilized but this page provides the basics. The 'W" OCS is an
inclined plane at SNA at a 1 :34 slope beginning 200' from the landing threshold point (L TP) and
extending along the approach course centerline to the final approach fix.
The "X" obstacle surface begins at the height of the 'W" surface and rises at a slope of 1:4
perpendicular to the final approach course.
1 2003 - A WP - 2870 - OE issued 9/23/2003
2
75C-318
The "Y" obstacle surface begins at the height of the "X" surface and rises at a slope of 1 :7
perpendicular to the final approach course.
Diagram A shows the protected area overlying an aerial image of John Wayne Airport.
So as not to impact the ILS approach, buildings and/or other objects would be restricted to the
following height at a position abeam the Geneva Commons Site at the nearest point on the
extremity of the "Y" surface to an elevation of 454.9' AMSL 2. This is well above the proposed
building height and and is located 1300' away from the edge of the ILS area. This discussion is
only relevant to the ILS procedure which offers the lowest landing minimums at SNA. Other
instrument procedures at SNA have different required obstacle clearances such as the localizer
only, RNAV and LDA. These were discussed in the original report.
III. LOCALIZER BACK COURSE RUNWAY 01L
The back course localizer approach to R01 L offers the lowest instrument approach minimums to
Runway 01 L at SNA. The missed approach procedure is "Climb to 800, then climbing left turn to
2300 via SLI R-120 to SLI VORTAC.
The missed approach point for the SNA Runway 01 L BC localizer procedure is located 0.7 nm to
the south of R01 L. The distance from the missed approach point to the building is 3.44 statute
miles (18,163'). The missed approach altitude for the procedure is 480' AMSL.
FAA designs procedures for the missed that take into account the worst possible aircraft
performers. However, a minimum climb rate of 200' in the missed approach is required. This figure
is not realistic with modern aircraft that can safely exceed 1 ,000 feet per nautical mile in the missed
approach procedure. However, even at a minimum climb rate of 200'/NM the aircraft will begin a
left turn at 800' MSL to the northwest and at this altitude is already well above the proposed
building sites, and the commencement of the turn will occur approximately 1.82 statute miles prior
to the proposed buildings. At a 1000'/NM climb rate the left turn to the northwest would commence
at least 2.77 statute miles prior to the proposed building sites.
IV. Conclusion
The proposed Geneva Commons building site at the FAA approved elevation of 287' AMSL will not
affect any of the instrument procedures at John Wayne Airport.
2 The height (Dy) = Height of Rise of Rise of
"w" Sfc "X" Sfc "Y" Sfc
Dy = 0-(200) Ox - Ow 00 - Ox = 454.9
S 4 7
Where O=the distance in feet from the L TP; Ox = the perpendicular distance in feet between course centerline and "x" surface outer boundary,
00 = perpendicular distance in feet between course centerline and an obstruction in the "Y" surface.
3
75C-319
4
75C-320
r-F1' ....~-~-~---;r-.-:..;!~'~II _a~J. .. 'r~....e.. !..'~'
l........~' : ,. ..";" . ~'II /~~.. M ~. '':''~~~S"". "$...
. .,llllt! ,: :,!,~'l~~ ~~t.. "A.:.;( ;ca:ll:-I~r ~~ll'~'-':
~.-' :......".1'1;.. ...... .: i. g\ :~. '. '~, J ~r.I~~t;II~rJ .
i.""::", "'_''',~i '. II h...Ii. :'It~
r.... ....,,"',. '. \ . ~'.'..~: v f'l ........:11....
~_' . _\,>1;...- p;,?: 'f ....~ .. . - --
r. .. -r.... ~ ., I & 11\ t",.,ut hur Pial" ,mti -' 1m rt'rial Pro
'~B. . I" :rl.I\!<l.x E1..\ - 'l~'1.' ,\f\'SI"~. ... .
.,\.:,.~]-,..: :11 ! . ~
':.S~1'--;L\A olrrron.d (;.'n(>\'<l ('nmmons - 2S7' .\1\ 1St ..0'
/". -':" ~ -, . ,,.,,t'~--1N- . "L .....-
,'! 11_:I~_:,I. .:i ~~~::tpL;~:n c!IN~~(I'~i;i~ . J(;I\;;f~ C;T
- 'i"~\:) I ,; i1
~ q ;~'i .: r~ .5 & ~ Hutton"-. r'
... :.. \ , 1:;.. 214' & 214' .\f\ISII2E
.;'~~-.:!'::'~'-;'::".:..:~"';~ . l-~-t~~_~~~~_..;;;"''''c ,~ ~ J. ~
: e( 't~nt~;'~-~C_J\\/t}l S.,l~,;", G;' f:~";' .J::-"
. ,U.l' .\I\hl. 'Ii .:', ,'"
i.. 1
.rlaz,1 TOWdCOSTA
'21' .-\M~l :
>hi
B
,
- .$UW~OWl:..
H,
P,uil~
21S' .~l
~;:;;:,;,:;_;'f-;
t!~:~~4.1'
,
~
'-.~
~Futur... South COast rl..u~l?
110;' \1\ \'.1.. ?
" ;!.Ilil:._.____ItI'Y.'
.
~.
". ...
::'~..
... "
... j~ .
~ .,(
. .~
iti Corp 26J' .\r.ISI.
.
""-'-'~
-. "
:: I,
S;;Ma ,l."i1
Cr..;.j"'t!'1 ::b~ (
;-,.,'
'f<:~"-,_: H' .. .
( ":ffi.): ..
",' :-", .
..... "'~':)..
r ',;;I ~'r
r.( ./ '
~,.
~"l1
." .5r)C~'.;~"D$
;"';"_,__,--~._._.-J.., _ '" ~__
,
~/"~'
. t~V
'\l >~ ,
~- .
/" ..;"'-'
,
~.:::...~.._--...,~; -
~.~. :". :. . ,..:;
-"!ft
~
_~"':"t.
h..".t,'.".)f"
. .~1
:-:"., :~:;
""""""
~
.t:7J"l'Jf'
~, ml'3
5
75C-321
5/15/02
3.0
Vol 3
@]
8260.38 CH<:
CHAPTER 3. PRECISION FINAL AND
MISSED APPROACH SEGMENTS
FINAL SEGMENT.
The area originates 200 feet from L TP or FTP and ends at the PFAF (see
figure 3-1). The primary area consists of the lAW" and "X" DeS, and the
secondary area consists of the lAY" OCS.
Figure 3-1. Precision Obstacle Clearance Areas
---
POFA I..,. --... . .._--. ..
I'~....;.................._......_..-..'-.-- -------_::v~o~~~=~~~~=j
1"'. '''50.200 fut.--.w..---..mm................,
~ ~',
PGPI '4
;1
..:.....:t::::::.:.:':::e~.--
..:::::ri::::j(::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::~
::;::.:ijf#"::::il::i:l~::::::::~:l:
Cross Section At
200' from RWT
Cross Sllction At
50200' from RWT
ASSL
OCS Y Y
Y y' 1 :7 X X 1:7
'" 1~' OOS 1~' U . ---Ar---r-;' W _ "~
~ \ W .Al._-OCS ~I I~
I . I I ' I I ",,','
1300 300 400:4001300 :3001 ~500i 3876 i 2200 i 2200 i 3876 i250~
.... 700 '"'r 700 .; i"'_.....m 6076 .......:..... 6076 ----~
Page
75C-322
Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No.
Western Pacific Regional OffiItECEIVET\2003-AWP-2870-0E
PO Box 92007-AWP-520 ~rior Study No.
Los &~geles, CA 90009-2007. 2003-AWP-2869-0E
SEP 2 9 2003
Issued Date: 9/23/2003
CRP
SANTA ANA
FRANCO MOLA
COASTAL RIM PROPERTIES
139 EAST ALTON AVE
SA.'l'TA ANA, CA 92707
h DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under
the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure Type:
Location:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Heights:
Building
SANTA ANA, CA
33-42-2 NAD 83
117-51-51
250 feet above ground level {AGL}
287 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace
by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore,
pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the
structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following
condition{s) is(are} met:
As a condition to this Determinatior., t :~<;; st'tUcture should be marked and/or
lighted in accordance with FAA Advise.:y Cire ~ l.r 70/7460-1 70/7460-1K,
Obstruction Marking and Lig~ting, red lights - C~apr~rs 4,S(Red),&12.
It ~s required that the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction
or Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is
abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction
(7460-2, Part I)
x Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height
(7460-2, Part II)
As a result of this structure being critical to flight safety, it is required
that the FAA be kept appraised as to the status of the project. Pailure to
respond to periodic FAA inquiries could invalidate this determination.
See attachment for additio~alcondition(s} or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and
occupants may be subjecte9 to noise from aircraft operating to and from the
airport.
This determination expires on 3/23/2005 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.
EXHIBIT "B"
75C-323
(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of
the Federal Communications commission (FCC) and an
application for a construction permit has been filed , as
required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this
determination. In such case, the determination expires on
the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of
construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE Pf:~IOD OF THIS DETERMINATION
MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
EXPIRATION DATE.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition
on or before 10/23/2003. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must
contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted in
triplicate to the Manager, Airspace Branch, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C. 20591.
This determination becomes final on 11/2/2003 unless a petition is timely filed.
In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of
the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which'
includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes
in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this
determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to
heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice
to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes,
derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure.
However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above.
Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires
separate notice to the FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and
efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not.relieve the sponsor
of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of
any-Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and
proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating
under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all
existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical
fa~ilitiesi and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when
combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study
disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect
on air navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA
during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter
can be found on the following page(s).
A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications
Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority.
Page 2
75C-324
-
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (310)725-6559.
On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to
Aero~l St;.~ y Number 2003-AWP-2870-0E
/ //. rl.
6: ~i: (/\ .
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
(DNH) 215023
PilCP. 1
75C-325
Additional Information for ASN 2003-AWP-2870-0E
The proposed building of 250 foot Above Ground Level (AGL), 287 foot Above Mean
Sea Level (AMSL) located approximately 6,886 feet northwest of John Wayne.
Airport Runway 19R, exceeds Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Subpart
C, as follows:
77.23(a) (2) exceeds by 31, a height AGL or airport elevation, whichever is
higher exceeding 200 feet within 3 miles of the airport.
77.23(a} (5) exceeds by 81, a height exceeding a horizontal surface of 150 feet
above the airport field elevation (56ft AMSL) within a radius of 10,000 feet, as
defined by FAR 77.25(a) (2).
This proposal was not circularized because it is in an area of structures of
similar height.
P~ap. 4
75C-326
Conditions for Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-24 is approved subject to compliance, to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the
Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the
following conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising
the rights conferred by this conditional use permit.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the
life of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may
result in the revocation of the conditional use permit approval.
Conditions of Approval
A. Plannina Division
1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review
approval of DP No. 02-36.
2. Any amendment to this conditional use permit must be submitted to the
Planning Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if
administrative relief is available or the conditional use permit must be
amended.
3. The finish materials on the lower levels of the residential buildings must
consist of a sandstone material subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Manager.
4. A floor plan of each floor showing the layout of the units must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. Units cannot have bedrooms and
bathrooms back to an adjacent unit where possible.
5. A storage plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for approval.
The plan shall indicate the location and square footage of storage space
for each unit, with a minimum of 128 cubic square feet devoted to each
unit.
6. A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking stalls
will function must be submitted prior to building plan check. Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that restrict truck delivery hours to
non-peak periods shall be submitted prior to building plan check.
Exhibit "C"
75e~3927
7. A Perforated Metal Screen Sign Program addressing signage on the south
elevation of the parking structure must be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval prior to submittal into building plan check. The
Perforated Metal Screen sign program shall include details of the sign age
(text, materials) on the parking structure as well as a maintenance plan
delineating the long-term repair and replacement of any graphic.
8. The project shall incorporate on-site professional property management
for both the residential and commercial components.
9. Primary balconies for each unit shall maintain a minimum dimension of not
less than six feet in any direction.
10. A fireplace shall be provided within each common area lobby for the
project.
11. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided for the
project. At a minimum, the CC&R's shall include provisions pertaining to
owner occupancy, restrictions on home based businesses, and the
prohibition of storage on balconies.
12. A Public Art Plan which proposes a specific work(s) of art for a specific
location(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
approval. All public art approved by the Planning Commission shall be
completely installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the project.
13. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette,
the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts
and outdoor furniture for the retail area and private podium.
14. The following items must be included as interior amenities within each unit
and the common areas: Concierge services for the residents, granite
counter tops, hardwood flooring, General Electric Monogram appliances or
equivalent, tiled bathroom and shower walls, individual laundry hook-ups,
electric fireplaces, high-end furniture and equipment within the resident
lounge and fitness center. The exact specifications for these items are
subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager.
15. The following items must be included as exterior amenities for the
development: Enhanced paving on the walkways and central courtyard,
palm trees along First American Way, an outdoor fireplace and barbeque
on the amenity deck, at least one water feature on the amenity deck. The
exact specifications for these items are subject to the review and approval
of the Planning Manager.
Exhibit "C"
~~-~28
16. A minimum of 7,000 square feet of private storage space shall be provided
within the parking deck. The storage space shall be divided among all
homeowners and shall be provided at no cost to the residents.
17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, complete a noise analysis which
identifies measures that provide additional noise attenuation of at least 3
db below the 45 CNEL required for the project.
18. Cast iron drain pipes shall be provided for the project.
19. Smart wiring, such as cable television and high-speed cable for computers,
shall be provided for each unit and within the project's common areas.
Mitiaation Measures
20. All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering with complete coverage shall occur
at least twice daily, once in the late morning and once after work is done
for the day.
21. All clearing and earthwork activities shall cease during period of high
winds (winds greater than 25 mph averaged over one hour) or during
Stage 1 or Stage 2 smog episodes.
22. Streets surrounding the project site should be cleaned at the end of each
day of construction.
23. All material transported offsite shall either be sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
24. The amount of area disturbed by clearing and earthwork activities shall be
minimized at all times.
25. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer's specifications.
26. To the extent feasible, gasoline powered equipment shall be used for
onsite and offsite construction activities.
27. In the event unknown cultural resources are encountered during
construction operations, all construction activity within the immediate
vicinity of the discovery shall halt and the City's Environmental
Coordinator shall be contacted for appropriate action.
Exhibit "C"
~~..o3~9
28. Any material collected shall be donated to a local institution, which has the
proper facilities for curation, display and use by interested parties. The
discovery shall be described in a report, which receives sufficient
distribution to insure its availability to future researchers.
29. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for
review and approval a surface drainage/grading plan/erosion control plan,
prepared by registered Civil Engineer, showing the direction and means of
flow to adjacent streets. The plan is to include existing and proposed
elevations at and adjacent to all property lines. Drainage routed to the
street must be directed beneath the sidewalk and through the curb.
30. All design recommendations identified in the geotechnical investigation
prepared by T.E.L.A., April 2003 shall be incorporated into design plans
and implemented during construction.
31. Prior to grading, existing vegetation, trash, surface structures and debris
shall be removed and disposed off-site at a legal dumpsite. Any existing
utility lines, or other subsurface structures, which are not to be utilized
should be removed, destroyed, or abandoned in compliance with current
governmental regulations and concurrence from T.E.L.A.
32. Subsequent to clean up operations and prior to initial grading, a
reasonable search should be made for subsurface obstructions and/or
possible loose fill or detrimental soil types. This search should be
conducted by the contractor, with advice from and under the observation
of a representative of T.E.L.A.
33. Prior to the placement of fill or foundations within the building area, the
site should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations
presented in the Site Preparation Section of the Geotechnical
Investigation Report prepared by T.E.L.A. in April of 2003. Fill should be
spread in 6 to 8 inch lifts and should be moisture conditioned and
compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site
Preparation section. All undocumented fill or disturbed soils within the
building areas should be removed and compacted under observation and
testing of a representative of T. E. L.A.
34. The exposed subgrade and/or excavation bottom should be observed and
approved by a representative of T.E.L.A. for conformance with the intent
of the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and prior to
any further processing or fill placement.
35. On-site inorganic granular soils that are free of debris or contamination are
considered suitable for placement as compacted fill. A representative of
Exhibit "C"
Pa~e 4 of9
7oC-330
T.E.L.A. shall provide guidance for acceptability and placement of on-site
clay fill materials.
36. Observation and field tests shall be performed during grading by a
representative of T.E.L.A. in order to assist the contractor in obtaining the
proper moisture content and required degree of compaction. Where less
than the required degree if compaction indicated, additional compactive
effort any necessary adjustments in the moisture content of the soil should
be made to obtain the required compaction.
37. To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations,
footing excavations should be observed to be clean of loosened soil and
debris before placing steel or concrete and probed for soft areas. If soft or
loose soils or unsatisfactory materials are encountered, these materials
should be removed and replaced with compacted fill.
38. Wherever, in the opinion of a representative of T.E.L.A, as unsatisfactory
condition is being created in any area, whether by cutting or filling, then
the work should not proceed in that area until the condition has been
corrected.
39. Prior to approval of final design plans, the project applicant shall submit
the proposed project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
for review and consistency of FAA criteria and regulations.
40. Prior to approval of final design plans, the project applicant shall file a
Notice of Proposed Construction with the FAA. Conditions placed on the
project by the FAA shall be incorporated in the final design and
construction of the proposed project.
41. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide
proof of coverage under NPDES General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit, which includes a copy of the project permit number and two
copies of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
42. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide
a NPDES post construction storm water management plan per Orange
County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) that includes all
Structural and Non-Structural Best Management Practices for the
proposed project.
43. Submit and have approved a surface drainage/utility plan to include all
structural Best Management Practices.
Exhibit "C"
fgt:~3931
44. Provide two copies of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that
includes a description of all-applicable Structural and Non-Structural Best
Management Practices, which would apply to this project.
45. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall receive
approval of NPDES Permit for the State Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the proposed on-site dewatering operations.
46. Building plans for the proposed project shall reflect that restaurant uses be
fitted with a grease interceptor to the size and capacity as designated by
the Building Safety Division of the City of Santa Ana to mitigate impacts on
the local sanitary sewer system and regional water quality. Such grease
interceptor shall be regularly maintained so as to remain fully functional.
47. The proposed project would be subject to City of Santa Ana Federal Clean
Water Protection Enterprise Fees.
48. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a
final surface water runoff evaluation for review and approval showing
existing and proposed facilities and methods of draining the site without
exceeding the capacity of any street or adjacent storm drain facility.
49. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be
responsible for the construction of onsite storm drain systems.
50. Prior to the recordation of a final subdivision map or the issuance of any
grading permits, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the
City of Santa Ana Engineering Department for approval. The Acoustical
Analysis Report shall describe the acoustical design features of the
structures required to satisfy an interior noise level of no more than 45
dBA CNEL. In addition, the Acoustical Analysis Report shall contain
satisfactory evidence indicating that the sound attenuation measures
specified in the approved acoustical reports have been incorporated into
the design of the project. These measures are applicable to those
residential units that directly overlook Macarthur Boulevard and/or the SR-
55 Freeway. Such measures could include (but not be limited to) the
inclusion of forced-air ventilation allowing window and doors to remain
shut, the use of acoustic-rated windows and/or sliding door assemblies, a
reduction in the physical size of the windows and/or sliding doors, the use
of solid core exterior doors, the use of gaskets and seals on all external
doors and windows, and any other measures deemed acceptable to the
City of Santa Ana that will attain the 45-dBA CNEL interior noise level.
51. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to
minimize noise emissions.
Exhibit "C"
Pa2e 6 of 9
7oC-332
52. All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake
silencers no less efficient than those originally installed.
53. The pile-driving equipment shall be enclosed on all sides with an
acoustical blanket barrier that provides a minimum sound transmission
class (STC) rating of 30. The height of the blanketed enclosure shall be at
least 20 feet tall. With the exception of ingress/egress, there shall be no
openings or gaps in the enclosure and ingress/egress points are to remain
closed during pile driving activities. All noise-producing equipment shall
be located no closer than 6 feet from the blanket barrier.
54. All stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) and
servicing of equipment shall be located as far from external land uses as
is feasible.
55. The name and contact number of a contact person shall be posted on-site.
56. Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City
of Santa Ana Planning Division.
57. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the project applicant shall submit a
Security Plan to the Police department for approval.
58. A minimum 12-inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be installed at each
stair landing. All doors leading into stairwells shall be equipped with a
minimum 5-inch by 20-inch fire related window. The last flight of stairs
shall be fully enclosed at its base.
59. The proposed project structure shall be designed in accordance with the
City of Santa Ana Parking Structure Standards.
60. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum 1 foot-candle of
light.
61. All elevators serving the residential component of the project shall be
equipped with card readers at the garage levels to restrict unauthorized
access into the residential towers. The elevator lobbies shall be designed
and constructed of material that allows maximum visibility of the interior of
the lobby from the parking decks. Glazing material shall be used to its
maximum extent.
62. The elevator adjacent to drop-off area shall be designed with a glass
backed elevator cab.
Exhibit "C"
75C-03~3
63. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit
evidence to the City of Santa Ana of a fee payment between the developer
and the SAUSD to offset school facility related impacts.
64. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy permits the project
developer shall meet Municipal Code Parkland requirements through the
dedication of land and/or the payment of park impact fees, as determined
by the Planning Division.
65. Prior to the issuance of building permits the project applicant shall provide
a fair share contribution for the restriping of the southbound approach
along Grand Avenue to provide one exclusive left turn lane, one shared
left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane.
66. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide
a fair share contribution for the restriping of the southbound approach of
Imperial Promenade to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, a shared left
turn-through lane and dual right lanes.
67. The project applicant shall be subject to Transportation System
Improvement Fees and San Joaquin Hills corridor Fees.
68. Prior to final approval of the proposed project by the City of Santa Ana, the
project applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the FAA and
the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, unless overruled by the
City Council.
69. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall
coordinate with the City of Santa Ana Water Department regarding the
depths, locations and sizes of proposed water distribution facilities.
70. Water conservation measures recommended by the State Department of
Water Resources and applicable state laws requiring the use of water-
efficient plumbing fixtures and recommendations for low-water-using
landscape shall be incorporated into the project design as appropriate.
GPM are prohibited.
B. Police Department
1. A security plan must be submitted to the Police Department at the plan
check stage for approval. The plan must cover all aspects of the projects
security including security personnel, surveillance equipment, and
hardware. The project will be required to have a minimum of four state
licensed uniformed security personnel. One security officer will be
required for each building, one for the podium level and one for the
parking garage.
Exhibit "C"
~ge~3934
2. A minimum 12-inch shatterproof convex mirror shall be installed at each
stair landing. All doors leading into stairwells shall be equipped with a
minimum 5-inch by 20-inch fire rated window. The last flight of stairs shall
be fully enclosed at its base.
3. The City of Santa Ana parking structure design standards shall be
followed in its entirety. Duress alarms allowing voice communication with
security personnel shall be placed in strategic locations, approved by the
Police Department, throughout the parking garage.
4. All project walkways shall be illuminated to a minimum maintained 1
footcandle of light.
5. All elevators serving the residential component of the project shall be
equipped with card readers at the garage levels to restrict unauthorized
access into the residential towers. The elevator lobbies shall be designed
and constructed of material that allows maximum visibility of the interior of
the lobby from the parking decks. Glazing material will be used to its
maximum extent.
6. The Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed at six months, at one year
and then annually thereafter by the Police Department for any modification
to the conditions of approval.
7. Elevator adjacent to drop-off shall be designed with convex mirrors.
Exhibit "C"
P~e 9 of9
7oC-335
Conditions for Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 16556
Tentative Tract Map No. 16556 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform
Building Code and all other applicable regulations.
The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to
exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract map.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in
the revocation of the conditional use permit.
A. Plannina Division
1. Comply with all conditions and requirements from the Development Review
Committee (DRC) for the development project (DP 04-26).
2. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project must
be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map.
3. All real estate signage must be removed from the site within one year from
the date of installation. An extension of time may be granted as
determined by the Planning Manager.
4. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building
permits.
5. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by
the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and
specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of
the State Subdivision Map Act.
6. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and
permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance.
7. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and
development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance.
8. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC&R's shall be submitted each
to the Planning Division, Fire Department, Building Division, and Public
Works Agency within 10 days of recordation.
75~~~'36
Conditions for Approval for Variance No. 2004-11
Variance No. 2004-11 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the
California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all
other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising
the rights conferred by this variance.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in
the revocation of the variance.
A. Plannina Division
1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review
approval of DP No. 02-36.
2. Any amendment to this variance must be submitted to the Planning
Division for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief
is available or the conditional use permit must be amended.
3. The finish materials on the lower levels of the residential buildings must
consist of a sandstone material subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Manager.
4. A floor plan of each floor showing the layout of the units must be submitted
to the Planning Division for review. Units cannot have bedrooms and
bathrooms back to an adjacent unit.
5. A storage plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The
plan shall indicate the location and square footage of storage space for each
unit, with a minimum of 128 cubic square feet devoted to each unit.
6. A Parking Management Plan documenting how the tandem parking stalls
will function must be submitted prior to building plan check. Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that restrict truck delivery hours to
non-peak periods shall be submitted prior to building plan check.
7. A Sign Program addressing signage on the south elevation of the parking
structure must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior
to submittal into building plan check. The sign program shall include
details of the signage (text, materials) on the parking structure as well as a
maintenance plan delineating the long-term repair and replacement of any
graphic.
Exhibit "E"
~~~~7
8. The project shall incorporate on-site professional property management
for both the residential and commercial components.
9. Balconies for the project shall maintain a minimum dimension of not less
than six feet in any direction.
10. A fireplace shall be provided within each common area lobby for the
project.
11. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided for the
project. At a minimum, the CC&R's shall include provisions pertaining to
owner occupancy, restrictions on home based businesses, and the
prohibition of storage on balconies.
12. A Public Art Plan which proposes a specific work(s) of art for a specific
location(s) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and
approval. All public art approved by the Planning Commission shall be
completely installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the project.
13. A detailed landscape plan must be reviewed and approved prior to
issuance of any building permits. In addition to the landscaping palette,
the plan shall include details on the hardscape design, lighting concepts
and outdoor furniture for the retail area and private podium.
Exhibit "E"
~~.?3~8
Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2004-06
Site Plan Review No. 2004-06 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building
Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the following
conditions of approval:
The applicant must comply with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising
the rights conferred by this site plan approval.
The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life
of the development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in
the revocation of the site plan review approval.
A. Plannina Division
1. The project must remain in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan
Review (DP No. 02-36).
Exhibit "F"
75C-339
75C-340