HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75E (IN FAVOR)75E
75E
City Council Meeting Correspondence
2/5/2019
PUBLIC HEARING — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0, 2018-01, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06 AND AMENDMENT
APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2525
NORTH MAIN STREET
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
1 2/1/2019
Pamela Sapetto on behalf
OCBC
Yes
of Alicia Berhow
2 211/2019
Pamela Sapelto on behalf
Building Industry Association
Yes
of Steven LaMotte
3 2.1112019
Ursula Martinez on behalf
LiUNA
Yes
ofAdrain Esparza
4 2/1/2019
Toyer Grear on behalf of
Lozeau Drury
Yes
Richard Drury
5 2/4/2019
Thomas Ruiz of behalf of
LiUNA
Yes
Jon Preciado
6 2/5/2019
Tim Johnson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
7 2/512019
Cassius Rutherford
Associated Students of the
Yes
University of California Irvine
8 2/512019
Jeanette Wood
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
9 2/512019
Marc and Liz Trimble
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
1 11128/2018 Hannah Hughes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 201.9
Lozeau Drury LLP
Yes
Page 1. of 1.8
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*, of RA.*
2
1/21/2019
Gil Wilksen and Terry
Yes
Wilksen
2
11/29/2018
Hannah Hughes
Lozeau Drury LLP
Yes
3
1/22/2019
Adeline Allen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
3
11/30/2018
Hannah Hughes
Lozeau Drury LLP
Yes
4
1/28/2019
Adeline Allen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
4
1/28/2019
Dale Helvig
NSAPA
Yes
5
2/1/2019
Pamela Sapetto on behalf
Yes
of Ryan Ogulnick
5
1/28/2019
Marilyn Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
6
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
6
2/5/2019
Dale Helvig on behalf of
Yes
Mike Tardif
7
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
7
2/512019
Cathy Morehead
Yes
8
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller on behalf of
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Marilyn Fuller
8
215/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
9
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
9
2/5/2019
Christine Denny-Helvig
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
10
1/29/2019
Tim Rush
Yes
'RA - Recommended
Action
Monday, March 11, 2019
Page 2 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA*
10
215/2019
Gary Thomas
Yes
1.1
2/5/2019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
11
1/30/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
12
2/512019
Susan Burroughs
Yes
12
2/412019
Brennan Roach
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
13
2/5/2019
Stephen and Judy Swytak
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
13
2/4/2019
Tim Rush
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
14
2/512019
Ellen Koldeway
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
14
2/5/2019
Darcie Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
15
2/512019
Tom Morrissey
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
15
21512019
Dingyonsunset
Yes
16
215/2019
Heather Sidell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
16
2/612019
Lisa
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
17
2/6/2019
Lynne Zwickl
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
17
7/512019
Cathy Morehead
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
18
2/812019
Dale Helvig
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
18
21512019
Megan Klempa
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
-RA - Recommended
Action
Monday, March 11, 201.9
Page 3 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
19
211112019
Jeffery Foster
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
19
2/5/2019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
20
2/5/2019
Jeffrey Foster
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
20
2/11/2019
Dale Helvig
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
21
2111/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
21
2/512019
David Hastle
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
22
2/5/2019
Lisa Ganz
Yes
22
2/15/2019
Cathy Morehead
Yes
23
2/1812019
Carol Slaton
Yes
23
21512019
Edwin Garrido
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
24
2/19/2019
Cathy Morehead
Yes
24
2/5/2019
Martin Garrido
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
25
2/19/2019
Kelly Medina
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
25
2/512019
Gina Garrido
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
26
21512019
Debora Curran
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
26
211912019
Diane Fradkin
Yes
27
2/19/2019
Dale Helvig
NSAPA
Yes
*RA - Recommended
Action
Monday, March 11, 201.9
Page 4 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
27
215/2019
Rockland Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
28
215/2019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
28
2/19/2019
Karen Ogar
Yes
29
2/5/2019
David Hastie
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
29
2119/2019
Mike Wood
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
30
215/2019
Sherry and David Smith
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
30
2/1912019
Ralfdoraomar
Yes
31
2/5/2019
Mike Tardif
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
31
2/19/2019
Barbara Wall
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
32
2/5/2019
Ana Linares
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
32
2119/2019
Rory Kirk
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
33
2/5/2019
Jane, Dave, Andrew, and
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Nathanael Minarik
33
211912019
Rory Kirk
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
34
215/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
34
2/19/2019
Sara and Scott Trask
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
35
2/19/2019
Darcie Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
35
2/5/2019
Raul Duran
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 5 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
36
215/2019
Lenette J. Wardinski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
36
2119/2019
Pete & Mary Iverson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
37
2/5/2019
Carol Slaton
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
37
211912019
Scott & Sara Trask
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
38
2119/2019
Marylin Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
38
2/5/2019
Steve Wardinski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
39
211912019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
39
21512019
Jennie Clacken
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
40
2/512019
Jennifer Stared:
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
40
2/19/2019
Marylin Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
41.
2/5/2019
Erica and Edward Sharar
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
41
211912019
Kristin and Giles Candy
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
42
2/1912019
Cliff and Pat Campbell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
42
2/512019
Jaine Chapman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
43
2/512019
Norma Bungle
Yes
44
2/512019
Robert Tiritilli
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
45
2/5/2019
Susan Hyatt
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 1.1, 2019
Page 6 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor in Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
46
21512019
Nelda Marquez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
47
215/2019
Charlie Andres
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
48
2/5/2019
Steve Wardlnski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
49
2/5/2019
Jennifer Sterett
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
so
2/512019
Joim Cordial
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
51
21512019
Candice Vance
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
52
2/5/2019
Brenda Call
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
53
2/5/2019
Sherry and David Smith
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
54
21512019
Andrea Harris
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
55
21512019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
56
2/5/2019
Deborah Hicks
Santa Aria Resident
Yes
57
2/512019
Jun Tanega
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
58
2/5/2019
Jun Tanega
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
59
21512019
Redid Estrada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
60
21512019
Miguel Ortiz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
61
21512019
Carlos and Carmen Ortiz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
62
2/5/2019
Roger Allen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 7 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
63
2/5/2019
Bill Bonnett
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
64
215/2019
Janet Basalone
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
65
2/5/2019
Tim Basalone
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
66
215/2019
Maureen and Patricia
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Bricken
67
2/5/2019
Alexandria Gabelman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
68
215/2019
Carol Park
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
69
2/5/2019
Donne
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
70
21512019
Fernando Posada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
71
2/5/2019
J Lester
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
72
2/5/2019
Shirley Eugest
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
73
2/5/2019
Darcie Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
74
2/5/2019
Giles Candy
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
75
2/5/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
76
2/5/2019
Kelly Medina
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
77
2/5/2019
ruthaakeller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
78
215/2019
Claude and Maureen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Foucault
79
215/2019
Laura Guzman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 2019
Page 8 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
80
215/2019
Susan and Steven
Yes
Semotan
81
215/2019
Eric and Anita Mull
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
82
2/5/2019
Tara Franklin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
83
2/512019
Carol Buck
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
84
2/5/2019
Corinne McDonald
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
85
2/5/2019
Alison Stanley
Yes
86
215/2019
Justin Wilson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
87
2/5/2019
Angelina Lopez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
88
2/5/2019
Kelly Medina
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
89
2/5/2019
Lenette J. Wardinski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
90
2/5/2019
Fernando Posada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
91
2/5/2019
Megan Flanagan
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
92
2/5/2019
Carol Park
Santa Arra Resident
Yes
93
2/5/2019
Parnela Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
94
2/5!2019
Carlos and Carmen Ortiz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
95
2/512019
Pat and Cliff Campbell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
96
2/5/2019
Art Mendelsohn
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 2019
Page 9 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
97
2/512019
Diana Espinoza
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
98
2/512019
Lindsay and Bonnie
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Thompson
99
2/5/2019
Cori McDonald
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
100
2/5/2019
Phil Schaefer
Yes
101
2/5/2019
Linda Koepsell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
102
2/512019
Joshua Sherman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
103
2/5/2019
Karyn Igar
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
104
2/5/2019
Castillo Family
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
105
2/5/2019
Michael O' Valle
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
106
2/5/2019
Andrea Schartz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
107
2/5/2019
Michelle O' Valle
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
108
2/5/2019
Gilbert Van Der Marliere;
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Marlene Van.Der,Marllere;
109
2/5/2019
Bill and Camille Sornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
1.10
2/5/2019
Eva Sanchez Bengar
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
111
2/11/2019
David Michael Lee
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
112
2/11/2019
Julie Tomlinson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
7.13
2/11/2019
Rhonda Wood Mojica
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
"'RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2.019
Page 10 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*, of RA.*
114
2111/2019
Roland Guaderrama
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
115
2/11/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
116
2/11/2019
John Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
117
2/11/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
118
2/11/2019
Julie Perlin Lee
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
119
2113/2019
Tara Fidalgo Franklin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
120
211312019
David Mitchell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
121
2114/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
122
2/1512019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
123
2/17/2019
Dan De Vol
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
124
2118/2019
Denise Chaudoin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
125
2/18/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
126
2/18/2019
Norma Burge
Yes
127
2/18/2019
Patricia Bricken
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
128
2/1812019
Carol Siaton
Sana Ana Resident
Yes
129
2/18/2019
Bill Sornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
1.30
2/18/2019
Susan Hyatt
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 11 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA•. of RA.*
131
2/18/2019
Flor Barajas Tena
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
132
2119/2019
Daniel Ramirez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
133
211912019
Daine Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
134
211912019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
135
2119/2019
Bea Tiritilli
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
136
2/19/2019
Brad Romoff
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
137
2/19/2019
Raquel Casey
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
138
211912019
James Martin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
139
2119/2019
Skip Van Der Marliere
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
140
2/19/2019
Ding Yon Sunset
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
141
211912019
Mike Wood
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
142
2/1912019
John Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
143
211912019
Camillia Sornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
144
211912019
Jun Tanega
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
145
211912019
Adriana Alexander
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
146
2119/2019
Julie Alexander
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
147
2119/2019
Carol Park
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
"RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 1.2 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
148
2119/2019
B. Nunez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
149
2119/2019
Shirley Mathewon
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
150
2/1912019
Art Mendelsohn
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
151
211912019
Lisa Mills
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
152
2/19/2019
Steven Ames
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
153
2/19/2019
B. Nunez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
154
211912019
Dorine Kethley
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
155
211912019
Joe & Sylvia Livingston
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
156
2/2012019
Brenda Nava
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
157
2/19/2019
Oliver Arceo
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
158
211912019
Kathy Hettick
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
159
211912019
Irma Jauregui
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
160
2/19/2019
Dolores Aguilar
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
161
2/19/2019
Victor Gonzalez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
162
2/19/2019
Eleno Cabada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
163
2/19/2019
Jim Sunmrow
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
164
2119/2019
Karen Sumrow
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 13 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
165
2/1912019
Fernando Posada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
166
211912019
Silvia Posada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
167
2/1912019
Genelle Johnson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
168
2119/2019
Sue McDonald
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
169
211912019
Gary Crane
Crane & Associates
Yes
170
2/19/2019
Camille Bornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
171
2119/2019
Dave Henthey??
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
172
2/19/2019
Art Mendelsohn
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
173
2/19/2019
Laura Guzman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
174
211912019
Micah Poteraj
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
175
2/19/2019
Sheldon & Allyson Palas;
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Laurie Furry
176
2/19/2019
Nova?
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
177
211912019
Marcia Santillan
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
178
2119/2019
Gerardo Sanchez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
179
2/19/2019
Bill Sornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
180
211912019
Gerardo Lechuga
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
181
2/19/2019
Scott & Sara Trask
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 14 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA,*
182
2/1912019
Dimitizi Lujan
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
183
211912019
Sharon Gullikson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
184
2/19/2019
Amy Hay
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
185
2119/2019
Mark Hay
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
186
2119/2019
Dan De Vol
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
187
2/19/2019
Bobbie Rooker
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
188
2119/2019
Beth Carter
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
189
2/19/2019
Normal Luna
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
190
2/19/2019
Tony Sherman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
191
2/19/2019
Cliff Campbell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
192
211912019
Debera Hendricks
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
193
2119/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
194
2/19/2019
Glenda Newcomer
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
195
2/19/2019
Brian & Adeline Allen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
196
211912019
Ann & Thomas Froner
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
197
2119/2019
Lenette Wardiniski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
198
2/19/2019
Pete and Mary Iverson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
'W - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 2019
Page 15 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
199
2119/2019
Steven Steggell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
200
2/19/2019
Peggy Steggell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
201
2/19/2019
Scott Bowen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
202
2/19/2019
Jerry Houchons
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
203
2/19/2019
Brian Poteraj
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
204
2/19/2019
Julie Tomlinson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
205
2/1912019
Esther Lopez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
206
2/19/2019
Susan Hyatt
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
207
2/19/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
208
2/19/2019
Darde Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
209
2/19/2019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
210
2/1912019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
211
2/1912019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
212
2/19/2019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
213
2/19/2019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
214
2/19/2019
George Britton
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
215
2/19/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday,
March 11, 2019
Page 16 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
216
211912019
Marilyn Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
217
2/1912019
Pamela Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
218
2119/2019
Peggy Steggell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
219
2119/2019
Marilyn Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
220
2/19/2019
Cliff and Pat Campbell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
221
2119/2019
Paul and Patricia Maize
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
222
2/19/2019
Allan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
223
2/19/2019
Deborah Hicks
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
224
2/1912019
Megan Klempa
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
225
2119/2019
Washington Square
Yes
Neighborhood Association
226
2119/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
227
2119/2019
Flor Barajas
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
228
2/1912019
John Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
229
2/1912019
The Maize family
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
230
2119/2019
Paul Maize
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
231
211912019
Paul and Patty Maize
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
232
2/19/2019
Francine Vasquez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 2019
Page 17 of 18
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 2019 Page 18 of 18
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
233
2/19/2019
Peggy Steggal
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
234
211912019
Pat Campbell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
235
2119/2019
Deborah Hicks
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
236
2/19/2019
Julie Alexander
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
237
2/19/2019
Darcie Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
238
211912019
George Britton
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
239
2/19/2019
Paul Maize of behalf of
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Patty Sigmon
240
2/19/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
241
211912019
George Britton
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
242
2/1912019
Darcie Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
243
211912019
Christine Denny
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
MEENEEMEM
... 285
TOTAL: 295
*RA - Recommended Action
Monday, March 11, 2019 Page 18 of 18
Orozco, Norma
From: Pam Sapetto <
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 11:20 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh; Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena
Subject: City Council meeting February 5; Agenda item 75E
Attachments: Addington Project -Support -Santa Ana Council[2]OCBC.pdf
Please find attached a letter of support for the proposed multifamily development at 2525 N. Main which will be
discussed by City Council at their February 5th meeting under item #75E Public Hearing; FEIR, DA, GPA and Amendment
Application #2018-10.
Pamela Sapetto
Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc
www.sapettorealestate.com
ORANGE COUNTY
til..',, iIN' SS CC)UNCH
2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 1 Irvine, CA 926141 P 949.476.2242 1 F 949.476.0443 1 www.ocbc.org
January 30, 2019
The Honorable Miguel Pulido and Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 2525 N. MAIN STREET
Dear Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
Orange County Business Council (OCBC) is the region's leading voice for business and
economic issues. OCBC firmly believes that a diverse housing market is critical to the
long-term success of Orange County, including a broad spectrum of rental, for -sale and
affordable choices. Therefore, OCBC urges you to approve The Addington apartment
project.
The project's proposed residential units will reduce the housing strain throughout Santa
Ana and support the local business community. In addition, the project team has created
a design that respects the surrounding neighborhood's privacy, parking, and traffic
concerns. Furthermore, the project will bring significant fiscal benefits and services that
will help the city as a whole.
When evaluating the necessity of housing projects, it is important to remember that
housing is where jobs go to sleep. In the absence of housing, many members of the
County's talented workforce will be forced to live and/or work in neighboring counties.
Projects like the Addington apartment are critical for sustaining and driving local economic
success. Orange County Business Council asks the Santa Ana City Council to
consider the economic prosperity of this development as well as its impact on the
local workforce and approve the proposed Addington apartment community.
Sincerely,
Alicia Berhow
Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
THE LEADING VOICE OF BUSINESS IN ORANGE COUNTY
Orozco, Norma
From:
Pam Sapetto<
Sent:
Friday, February 01, 2019 1:37 PM
To:
eComment
Cc:
Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh; Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena
Subject:
letter of support 2525 N Main
Attachments:
BIAOC Letter of Support - The Addington.pdf
Please find attached a letter of support for the proposed multifamily development at 2525 N. Main which will be
discussed by City Council at their February 5`" meeting under item #75E Public Hearing; FEIR, DA, GPA and Amendment
Application #2018-10.
Pamela Sapetto
Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc
www.sapettorealestate.com
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
February 5, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Proposed Development at 2525 N. Main Street, Santa Ana
Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
On behalf of our membership, I would like to state our support for the proposed
development at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, known as The Addington.
The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter
(BIA/OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,100 member companies employing
over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. Our mission is to
champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities.
As you are aware, California's economy is facing a concerning, yet surmountable
challenge that directly impacts our workforce: housing. A serious lack of available
housing units across all income levels is preventing new and growing families from
ascending the rungs of the housing ladder. As a result, many of these talented workers
are forced, often reluctantly, to relocate out-of-state to meet their housing needs.
In an effort to support our workforce, we implore the Santa Ana City Council to
approve the proposed zoning change and development for The Addington. Since its
inception, project designers for The Addington have worked closely with community
members to gather input and address concerns. The project's 496 residential units will
help alleviate the housing strain on the Santa Ana community and support the local
business community.
When evaluating the necessity of housing projects, it is important to remember that
these projects spark economic growth and prosperity for years to come. We urge City
Council to consider the economic benefits of this development as well as its impact on
our local workforce and approve the proposed Addington apartment community.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Steven C. LaMotte
Chapter Executive Officer
PRESIDENT
RICK W OOD
TRI POINTE HOMES
VICE PRESIDENT
SUNTI KUMJIM
MBK HOMES
TREASURER/SECRETARY
ERIC NELSON
TRUMARK HOMES
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
MIKE GARTLAN
KB HOMES
TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P.
ALAN BOUDREAU
BOUDREAU PIPELINE
CORPORATION
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
MARK HIMMELSTEIN
NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP
MEMBER -AT -LARGE
PETER VANEK
FOREMOST COMPANIES
MEMBER -AT -LARGE
SEAN MATSLER
COX CASTLE & NICHOLSON, LLP
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
STEVE LA MOTTE
Orozco, Norma
From: Adrian Esparza <
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 1:44 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Adrian Esparza; Robert Ruiz; Thomas Ruiz
Subject: Attn: Mayor Pulido
Attachments: Itr to Mayor Pulido 1-31-19.pdf
Importance: High
Good afternoon Deputy Council Lujano —
Attached please find a letter or support to Mayor Pulido for Tuesdays' City Council meeting in regards to 2525
N. Main Street project.
Please confirm receipt. Thank you.
Kind Regards,
Ur ula1Es,p"b,a1Mat-"iPk
Secretary to the Business Manager
Laborers' Local 652
91
Laborers'
International
Union of
North America MUNA!
�''•S• Feel the Power
�WEMN�����
E -
IIIIIIl� LOCAL UNION 652
ADRIAN A. ESPARZA
Business Manager
Sol
January 28, 2019
ROBERT RUIZ
Secretary -Treasurer Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
JESSE SEGURA City of Santa Ana
President 20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
JOSE LUIS TIRADO
Vice -President RE: Support for Proposed Development at 2525 N. Main Street
PETER IGLESIAS Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
Recording Secretary
The Brothers and. Sisters of the Local 652, an affiliate of the Southern
RUBEN GARCIA California District Council of Laborers and the Laborers International
Sergeant at -Arms Union of North America (LiUNA!), would like to convey our robust
GABINO"Gabby"ENRIQUEZ support for the proposed Addington development at 2525 N. Main Street,
'Executive Board Member which will bring much needed housing, infrastructure and fiscal benefits
to the City of Santa Ana and its Main Street corridor.
MICHAEL R. HERNANDEZ
Executive Board Member Local 652 is proud to represent over 3,500 hardworking laborers in
Orange County who form the very backbone of Santa Ana and our
HECTOR MADRIGAL region's economy. We encourage your approval of The Addington
Auditor because it demonstrates a strong commitment to the residents and our
membership. Not only would the project be built with the assistance of
GUADALUPE FLORES our members, but it would enhance the community through the additional
Auditor housing, economic stability, and prosperity that will accompany it. This
project will undoubtedly spark revitalization in that area, and bring the
_NRIQUE"Henry" MARTINEZ tax dollars, infrastructure improvements, and growth that Santa Ana
Auditor
needs.
For the above reasons, we urge you to approve the rezoning changes and
General Plan Amendment needed to move this project forward. This
project supports the families of our membership and the families of Santa
Ana.
LOCAL OFFICE: Sinterely,
Bus ness Manager
AAE/uem
OPEIU #537
Laborers' International Union of North America
Orozco, Norma
From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 2:26 PM
To: Orozco, Norma
Subject: FW: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka
Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017- 34
Attachments: 2019.02.01.Magnolia Support Letter3.pdf; ATT00001.htm
From: Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 2:20 PM
To: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida <cneal@santa-ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince
<VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Bernal, Sarah <SBernal@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>;
Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com; Storck, Lisa <LStorcl<@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Fwd: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH
2018021031, DP No. 2017- 34
FYI and for the hearing.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Toyer Great <
Date: February 1, 2019 at 1:56:01 PM PST
To: <rnpulido(a santa-ana.org>,<citycouncil cgan
santa-a.org>, <mthai cr,santa-ana.orQ>,
<r og dinez@a,santa-ana.org>, <skelaherna-,santa-ana.org>
Ce: "Drury, Richard" < , Komalpreet Toor
<
Subject: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka
Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017- 34
Mayor Pulido and Honorable Members of the City Council, Ms. Thai, Mr. Godinez
and Ms. Kelaher,
Attached please find correspondence written on behalf of the Laborers International
Union of North America, Local Union No. 652 and its members living in and near the
City of Santa Ana ("LIUNA").
Please note, hard copies will follow by overnight mail. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Toyer Grear
Office Manager / Paralegal
nCit�3�dtR!r 7aaudrury us7,ri
Via Email and Overnight Delivery
February 1, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council Minh Thai, Executive Director
City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza Planning and Building Agency I M20
Santa Ana, CA 92702 20 Civic Center Plaza
mpulidoa.santa-ana.oLq Santa Ana, CA 92702
citycouncil@santa-ana.org mthaji santa-ana.org
Raul Godinez, City Manager
City of Santa Ana
City Manager's Office
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
rgodinezna santa-ana.org
Planning Commission
c/o Selena Kelaher, AICD
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency I M20
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
skelaherAsanta-ana.org
Re: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential
Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-
34
Mayor Pulido and Honorable Members of the City Council, Ms. Thai, Mr. Godinez
and Ms. Kelaher:
I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America,
Local Union No. 652 and its members living in and near the City of Santa Ana
("LIUNA"), to provide our wholehearted SUPPORT for the Project known as 2525 N.
Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH
2018021031, DP No. 2017-34, including all actions related or referring to the
proposed project that would demolish the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-
story office building and 442 space surface parking lot to redevelop the 5.93 -acre
site with 405,290 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 496 multi-
February 1, 2019
Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH
2018021031, DP No. 2017-34
page 2
family residential units located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion
of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate 5 (1-5) ("Project').
LIUNA submitted extensive comments on the Project. We are pleased that
the Project proponent has taken our concerns seriously and has agreed to take the
following actions to address our concerns:
A. All construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) devices certified by the Air Resources Board (ARB).
Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve
emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as
defined by ARB regulations.
B. All wood materials for cabinets, doors and flooring shall be made either of
solid wood, or if composite wood materials are used (e.g. plywood,
medium density fiberboard, particleboard), such composite wood materials
for all interior finish systems shall be made with CARB approved no -added
formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultralow emitting formaldehyde (ULEF)
resins (GARB, 2009), unless such materials are not readily available in the
local market, in which case Applicant may use CARB Phase 2 certified
products.
With these measures, LIUNA enthusiastically supports the Project, and
withdraws its appeal of the CEQA documents. LIUNA believes that the Project will
provide much-needed housing for the community, will provide high-quality jobs, and
will mitigate environmental impacts to the full extent feasible. LIUNA urges the City
Council to APPROVE the Magnolia Project.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Orozco, Norma
From: Thomas Ruiz <
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 8:36 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Fwd: FW: Support Ltr. Proposed Development at 2525 Main St.
Attachments: Ltr-support Develop. 2525 Main St..pdf
Good morning,
On behalf of the Laborers International Union Southern California District Council and affiliates, representing
over 30,000 skilled construction craft laborers, we submit a letter of support for The Addington - 2525 North
Main St project.
wT
Labor Representative
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional
Organizing Coalition
5
1
LLS
February 1, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Support for Proposed Development at 2525 N. Main Street
Dear Honorable Mayor Pullclo and Council Members,
The Southern California District Council of Laborers, an affiliate of the Laborers
International Union of North America (LiUNAI), would like to convey our robust
TY support for the proposed Addington development at 2525 N. Main Street, which will
bring much needed housing, infrastructure and fiscal benefits to the City of Santa Ana
and its Main Street corridor.
ZIAL The SCDCL, made up of (12) affiliated Local Unions (including Laborers Local 652 in
Santa Ana, California) is proud to represent over 30,000 hardworking Laborers in
Southern California; many of whom live in Santa Ana and the greater Orange County
I 1 0 area. These men and women form the very backbone of Santa Ana and our region's
Es economy. We encourage your approval of The Addington because it demonstrates a
strong commitment to the residents and our membership. Not only would the project
be built with the assistance of our members, but it would enhance the community
through the additional housing, economic stability, and prosperity that will accompany
it. This project will undoubtedly spark revitalization in that area, and bring the tax
dollars, infrastructure improvements, and growth that Santa Ana needs.
DUNTY For the above reasons, we urge you to approve the rezoning changes and General Plan
MTY Amendment needed to move this project forward. This project supports the families of
our membership and the families of Santa Ana.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
COUNCIL_RERS
10
Jon P. Precado
Business Manager
Feel the Power
ORG MUNA1.
.114 S-01 -
Orozco, Norma
From: Tim Johnson <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:28 PM
To: eComment; Solorio, Jose; Pulido, Miguel; Iglesias, Cecilia; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento,
Vicente; Penaloza, David; Reyna, Roman
Subject: Agenda Item 75E: 2525 N Main Street
Please find below comments previously submitted regarding the proposed development at 2525 N. Main
Street. I do not want to reiterate everything below, but please know that I am supportive of this project and
know that others in the city are also. I live North of 17th Street just like so many others who will likely speak in
opposition to this project.
This project will provide financial benefits to the city as a whole, community benefits to our area of the city,
provide financial support for the schools, provide construction jobs for our laborers, and also provide much
needed housing stock for our current and future residents.
This proposed development, according to the traffic report, will also create less traffic than the currently zoned
alternative office building which could be built on that parcel. Yes, there are trade offs for these benefits which
you need to weigh. For example, there may be a change of aesthetics and site lines. However, our city needs to
evolve and develop responsbily the available land we have in order for the benefit of the entire city. Thanks for
your dedication to our city.
Dear Planning Commission, Mayor, City Councilmembers, and Select Planning Department Staff ... I am writing you today
in order to provide my perspective and support for the proposed development at 2525 N. Main Street. I am attaching
below my correspondence previously submitted on November 26'. Not all of you may have seen this due to the
election and changes on the, commission, so I am including for additional information. I have lived in Northern part of
Santa Ana for about 13 years now and am about 1 mile away from the development site and drive by 2525 quite
often. We own our home and rooted in the community and truly want is best for our neighborhood, community, and
the City as a whole.
Overall, I believe that the City of Santa Ana can and will benefit from this project. The City needs to evolve and property
development should be part of that evolution. We have far too many underutilized parcels that are not generating the
property tax revenue that our city needs. Having a vibrant North Main Street is also a benefit for our community. I
understand that change can be hard to accept and that the unknown may be scary especially for those with
preconceived negative notions about traffic, occupants of mult-family homes, nature of young folks, etc... In order to
move our city forward, we need to find additional revenue sources and attract residents of all housing types including
high amenity market rate apartments especially when those market rate apartments are not gentrifying existing areas
(i.e. displacing existing residents in a different economic housing position).
The financial benefits of this project are substantial and should not be overlooked or passed upon:
• General Fund: This project will provide almost $1M per year in additional net available funds ($33.5M in
revenue less $10M in expenditures) over a 25 year period. The city needs additional revenue sources and
development of undertuiltized parcels needs to be part of the plan. I pray that our city council and city staff
utilize these additional funds responsibly.
Low Income Housing: Provision of over $6M of in -lieu fees. This will not solve our low income and homeless
housing issues but it certainly will help.
• Santiago Park: The additional $1.4M allocated to the park for improvements will otherwise likely not
happen without this development (or one of similar nature).
N
I am glad that the developer has made changes to the project. The Planning Department's suggested changes, which I
presume the developer finds acceptable, seems to also be moves in the right direction which hopefully will help garner
support although I doubt that it will to the "no apartment" supporters. The changes that I have seen, which I find
substantial, from the time that I attended the Sunshine Ordinance (at which time I was originally opposed to the project)
through now include:
• Decreased number of units (density and bulk)
• Change of entrance away from Edgewood
• Terraced structure on the backside of the property adjacent to Park Santiago neighborhood (2 stories at the
back)
• Providing of security patrol for the surrounding neighbors and park
• Funding for improvements at Santiago Park
• Increased parking ratios
• Raising the height of the wall to adjacent single family neighbors
• Inclusion of a Public Art project
• Providing of $1.4M to improve Santiago Park
• Inclusion of Amazon Lockers for the surrounding neighbors
• Providing funds for Park Santiago neighbors to apply for historic district designation
The alternative use of the property which presumably would be to remain a professional office building designation
likely with a 3 story building (dropped down to 2 sotry in the back although the way the parcels are drawn this may not
be 100% required by a savy developer) will bring more traffic to our area of the city and likely will not provide the
additional community benefits (public art, Edgewood entrance or lack therof, neighborhood security, park
improvements, etc...). Overall, I believe that this project may be better off than the reasonable alternative.
Lastly, the city's own planning department who are trained in these matters support the project. There are also other
neighbors in the community who support it but will not speak up because they believe that their neighbors will not look
kindly upon them which is unfortunate in our great community. Again, I support this project and hope that after
listening to all stakeholders in the community, reviewing the EIR, reviewing the staff reports, and also considering the
city as a whole and not just one area, that you will support it also.
Thank you for your service to the residents of Santa Ana.
Here is my prior email from November 26th:
Dear Planning Commission through ecomments, Councilmembers, Mayor, Selena Kelaher, Candida Neal and Minh
Neal ... I am writing you this email to express my thoughts on the 2525 N. Main development. I am unable to attend the
Planning Commission's meeting on November 26th but I am hopeful that you will have an opportunity to read this email
and consider it as part of your planning session tonight. I also hope that you closely consider the thoughts, needs, and
desires of the surrounding community, EIR, the Planning Department Staff, and the Developer as well as the needs of
the City of Santa Ana as whole.
As you know, there is a fair amount of public opposition to this project. I for one was previously very opposed to this
project. However, the more that I learn about it and also the needs of our city, the more I become in favor it. I am not
alone in this thought process. Even though the most vocal crowd will be opposed, rest assured that there are a fair
number of residents in the area who are in favor of this type of development for a variety of reasons. There are some
that are even afraid to speak up because they do not want to be viewed as not being neighborly or they once opposed it
and now are neutral or even in support of it when weighing the alternatives. The North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance
(NSAPA) does not speak for everyone in our end of town.
would like to address what I believe to be the main opposition:
The Developer Is Not Listening to Us!
You will likely hear folks say that the Developer is not listening to NSAPA. This is simply not true. Yes, it is still a
residential development, which they are opposed to, however the Developer has made significant changes to the
project based upon community feedback during council meetings, neighborhood meetings, direct discussions,
etc... Some of these changes may be considered minor while others are quite extensive and likely changed the
economics of the project for the Developer. For example:
• There is no longer an egress on Edgewood which will significantly reduce cut through traffic. This looks to
have been in response to the community concern about cut through traffic in PS. Now for a resident of 2525 to
leave through PS, it will not be an easy way to go but requiring at least one U -Turn and a left turn and the traffic
lights associated with such.
• They increased the set back against the back wall. This is not required by code by the way. This was in
response to the community being concerned about the project being too close to residential back yards.
• They are doing a "stair step" on the levels in the back of the project- from 3 to 4 to 5 stories. Again, this
appears to have been in response to the community being concerned about the project looking into their
backyards.
• They changed the look of the project. This was in response to folks not liking the original concept
drawings. They also offered to meet with NSAPA members if the current look of the project was not
acceptable. It is my belief that this type of meeting did not take place.
• They have reduced the density.
• They have increased the parking ratio above industry norms and increased the ratio as they have decreased
density. They have also removed general pedestrian access on Edgewood I believe. These are in direct response
to concerns of overflow parking into PS especially the no pedestrian access. Most folks will not want to park in
PS because of the distance they will need to walk to get to their apartment because there is no access on
Edgewood.
• They are providing security patrol for PSNA. This appears to have been in response to concerns about crime
in the area.
• They are trying to be a good neighbor by sharing. They are providing an Amazon Locker area solely for
PSNA. They are also allowing PS residents to utilize the amenities of the project.
• They are providing significant funding to the park (Park Santiago)... this is huge in my opinion. It is
something that
Building Usage
Unfortunately, I think that a lot of folks do not realize that the project site is currently zoned for a 3 story office project
with 3 stories of parking (likely 4 with one sub-terranean). The reality of the situation is that the site should not remain
underutilized. It will not remain a small footprint 2 story building with a massive amount of surface parking- that is not
feasible nor should the city want it. I personally believe that a 3 -story building, which likely will be around 387K square
feet, can have even more of a detrimental effect when compared to the current alternative for 2525.
I believe that most folks who are opposed to the development and using items such as traffic, parking, visual look,
etc ... as reasons to be opposed are comparing it to the existing state for that parcel which is a small underutilized (or
even unutilized) office space with a vast amount of surface parking. It is not good for the fiscal impact to the city. It is
not good for the surrounding businesses and it very well may not be the best for the surrounding residents.
The No Project/No Build alternative in the EIR, although an alternative, simply is not a realistic alternative and it will also
deprive the city of some benefits. By not developing the property to its highest and best use, the city will lose out on
valuable property taxes. The amount of money that this project could provide to the city will be substantial in both
recurring property taxes and also one-time fees. The funds will not only help with annual general fund obligations but
also with our housing crisis in the city- both low income and market rate. The low income fees that they will have to pay
is tremendous and can certainly be put to good use by the city.
Although the project cannot and should not be viewed in an economic bubble, the revenue side certainly has to be of
high importance especially considering the fiscal crisis we are in at a time when the economy is supposedly doing
relatively well. The amount of money that a developer would need to invest in rehabbing the current property simply is
not a realistic use of their capital when compared to the annual cash flow potentially provided. A reasonable investor
will strive to increase cash flow and the current building would not provide that return.
The North end of Santa Ana is a great community. We desire strong businesses to be located here. We desire to have a
nice grocery store like a Trader Joe's. If we desire those things, unfortunately, it can be said that additional high income
residents will strengthen the case for a grocery store like a Trader Joe's to consider the area. I personally would not like
it at that location simply because of the traffic generation but there certainly are other areas that could possibly support
it.
Key Comparisons- 2525 vs Current Zoning
When comparing the current proposed housing development versus the existing zoning of a 3 -story office building, it is
important to consider the following:
• Traffic- An office building of this size will produce more traffic than the 2525 proposal. If traffic is a concern
of the opposition, then they should not be in favor of the current zoning but instead be in favor of something
else. A 3 -story office building as allowed under the current zoning simply has the potential to be much worse for
our community traffic -wise as compared to a residential alternative. Certainly, the residential proposal may
generate more traffic during off-peak times such as late night and weekends but that is not when traffic is
bad/worst on Main Street ... it is bad during peak commute times which is where a residential development has a
better traffic impact as compared to the existing office use.
• Traffic Flow- An office building will not have just one entrance on Main. Instead, it will have its entrance on
Edgewood as is currently provided for. They may be able to add a secondary entrance on Main, however since
the entrance is already on Edgewood, a developer of the property as an office building can keep it there. This
appears to be worse for the Park Santiago neighborhood and the resulting cut through traffic. Not to mention
that those travelling North on 1-5 will simply exit 17th Street and cut all the way through Park Santiago making a
morning commute even worse with cut through traffic. With the current Main Street only exit/entrance, the cut
through traffic, although likely not eliminated, should be significantly less than the existing proposal.
• Parking- An office building of this size will likely provide enough parking for tenants and guests. However,
this size of a building will also often have paid parking. This means that some guests and even some tenants
may be tempted to save the parking fees and park in the residential area. Overflow parking is a concern of the
neighbors but it should also be a concern under the existing allowed zoning. With the residential usage, there
seems to be ample parking with the new proposal (2 spots per unit) whereas with an office usage there will be
an economic advantage by parking in the Park Santiago streets because they will be able to save parking money.
• Green Space- We all love green space. I believe that the current housing development proposal would
provide for more overall green space. Now, it will not necessarily be public greenspace, but it will be good for
the environment and since the Park Santiago residents may be able to use it, it may also be good for them in
certain instances. Currently, the property is a dilapidated and underutilized office building and a surface parking
lot- a lot of asphalt. A new development will certainly bring more greenspace to the corner lot.
Low Income Housing Fees- We have a lot of concern about housing the homeless and otherwise our city's
homeless problems in our area town. An office redevelopment will not provide the in -lieu of fees associated
with a multi -family residential development. These fees, which likely will exceed $6M, will help our city with our
affordable housing crisis.
Y Visual Appearance- 2525 will be situated next to a very charming and historic neighborhood and in close
proximity to others. Looks are important to neighbors. The develop has expressed his availability to discuss the
visual appearance of the project, however I do not believe that anyone from NSAPA took him up on this
offer. Additionally, will a 3 story, 387 square foot office building provide all that much of a better visual
experience as you enter Park Santiago? We also must consider that even though the setback against Spurgeon
may be larger in an office usage, they will likely have 3 stories at that setback line as opposed to the proposed 2 -
story building under the 2525 proposal
• Availability of Housing- Yes, the prices of these apartments will be high. They may be the highest in Santa
Ana. They are also in an area of town that has the highest single family residence values in the city. Our city is in
need of housing. Our city is need of all types of housing. By having more supply of housing, even premium
priced housing, we should see some relief of housing stock. Plus, it will help due to the low income housing fees
paid by the developer to provide even more housing.
• Population Density- Sure, an office building will not bring additional housing to Santa Ana on that site. We
will hear folks say that Santa Ana is already so very densely populated. Well, our end of town is an outlier in
Santa Ana. The Park Santiago neighborhood has a density of 7.19K per square mile, West Floral Park is at 6.21K
per square mile while Floral Park is at 5.85K per mile (all according to this research site:
https://statisticalatias.com/place/California/Santa-Ana/Population) . The average for Santa Ana is 12.29K per
square mile. Some neighborhoods have population density of in excess of 40K per mile (Cornerstone Village at
63.13K, 41.96K for Willard, etc ... our end of town is definitely an outlier and much less densely populated than
4
the majority of Santa Ana. If we cannot have additional housing in our part of town, how do we justify it in
other parts of town that are much more densely populated? Whether we want to admit it or not, when our
vacancy rates are as low as they are right now, which is essentially just vacant turn over time, we have a housing
issue to deal with. The entire city has a housing issue to consider. Even the areas of town that are less densely
populated should be considering how we can be part of the solution.
We need to consider that if this project is stopped, which I don't think they should, that the next one may be worse for
all parties (including the city due to residential development fees) and due to the current zoning on that property, we
may be stuck with what we can get. We have an opportunity right now to be sure that any positive changes to the
project that can be made, are considered.
Residential Property Values
There is a lot of concern about what a high density development will do for our property values. Sure, there may be e
short term decrease as those who are so opposed to living next to apartments decide to sell their homes despite the
residents of 2525 quite possibly paying more per month for their rent than our cost of ownership. However, I believe
that the residents of 2525 will be the future home buyers of our houses when we are ready to move on. If they are
willing to pay the prices proposed, they will soon be trying to buy a home- and hopefully in our great neighborhoods.
Additionally, if folks do move, which I hope that they do not, they likely will be replaced by new buyers who will pay
higher property taxes due to Prop 13 value resets to fair value. This is not a reason to approve the project but just a
silver lining in case folks do intend to move because of this project.
Conclusion
There are positives that can come about from this project if we keep an open mind when comparing it to the existing 3 -
story building zoning ... less traffic, more city revenue, more low income housing availability through development fees,
etc.... Yes, there are negatives such as a possible lack of fit with the Park Santiago neighborhood and also a change from
the current status quo of a vacant building and these need to be weighed and considered when viewing this project.
Please consider all voices and not just those that speak the loudest or in the most numbers, but also consider the entire
city. We cannot look at this in a bubble but must look at what is best for the whole city. As a resident of North Santa
Ana, I want the best not only for my current neighbors, but my fellow residents who live in a completely different part of
town and also future neighbors who do not even know they will be moving into Santa Ana in the future. I trust you will
also and as such, please consider all aspects of this project when determining the best course of action.
Thanks for your consideration.
Orozco, Norma
From: Cassius Anton Rutherford <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:32 PM
To: City Council; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Reyna,
Roman; Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia; eComment
Subject: Fwd: For Immediate Release: ASUCI Issues Strong Pro -Housing Resolution Targeting
Lawmakers
Dear Hon. Mayor Pulido & Hon. Council Members,
On behalf of over 28,000 undergraduate students at the University of California, Irvine, the Associated Students
of UCI has adopted a formal resolution urging lawmakers across Orange County to approve additional housing
types in response to the acute regional housing crisis affecting our generation.
In accordance with the Associated Students of UC Irvine's support for additional housing, we wholeheartedly
urge the Santa Ana City Council to approve several important housing projects on tonight's city council
agenda.
We urge your approval of agenda items 75A (project located at 609 North Spurgeon St.), 75B (project located at
805-904 South Minnie St.), and 75E (Project located at 2525 North Main St.). Each of these projects increases
the supply of critically important housing types needed to stem the shortage of housing for Orange County's
working families.
Please see the included release outlining ASUCI's position in addition to the broad coalition forming among
different groups to support additional housing development.
Sincerely,
Cassius Rutherford
President's Chief of Staff
Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine
www.asuci.uci.edu
6244 Student Center • Irvine, California • 92697
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Associated Students of UC Irvine <
Subject: For Immediate Release: ASUCI Issues Strong Pro -Housing Resolution Targeting Lawmakers
I
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 15, 2019
Contact: Cassius Rutherford
951 - 265 - 0461
Associated Students of UC Irvine Issue Strong
Pro -Housing Resolution Targeting Lawmakers
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2018 -- The Senate of the Associated Students of the University of
California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted on behalf of the undergraduate student body at UC Irvine to issue a
strong pro -housing resolution. ASUCI calls on local lawmakers to approve additional housing types,
in particular housing for low-income and homeless populations, walkable or transit -oriented
development, and increasing density.
ASUCI's new policy position echoes the similar pro -housing policy resolutions passed by the
Angeles Sierra Club Chapter's Orange County Conservation Committee, the Orange County Board
of Supervisors, and the Democratic Party of Orange County. ASUCI's position also aligns with the
advocacy of People for Housing Orange County, a non-profit group which has been pushing for
additional housing in municipalities across the county. Students, working families, and community
leaders from every corner of Orange County have banded together and passed strong resolutions
urging lawmakers to approve the affordable and middle class housing we need.
People of all ages and backgrounds are saying "Yes In My Backyard" to more housing to meet the
existing need and the future housing demand in response to California's housing crisis. UCI
graduates and young professionals are struggling to gain a foothold in Orange County's expensive
housing market, and we need local lawmakers to step it up. ASUCI's pro -housing policy position is
2
now the official platform of UCI's undergraduate student government issued on behalf of
nearly 28,000 undergraduate students.
"ASUCI is proud to take a strong stance in response to Orange County's housing crisis", said
Cassius Rutherford, the ASUCI President's Chief of Staff. "Students at UCI are tired of being
marginalized in Orange County's expensive housing market, where the limited supply of on -campus
housing forces commuters to travel long distances from affordable communities. Graduates and
young professionals are being pushed out of Orange County by a serious housing shortage, in
particular the limited supply of low- and moderate -income housing. We urge lawmakers at all levels
to step up and tackle our housing crisis. Residents from all walks of life will stand with you."
Supporting links:
1. ASUCI Senate Legislation R54-40: In Support of Additional Housing
2. Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Orange County Conservation Committee Housing Resolution
3. Orange County Board of Supervisors Declaration on Housing
4. Democratic Party of Orange County Resolution in Support of More Housing
5. People for Housing Orange County: Political Leaders are Stepping Up (Voice of OC)
For questions or more information, please contact the following contributors:
Annie Le, ASUCI President
(
• Cassius Rutherford, ASUCI President's Chief of Staff
(
• Kenneth Stahl, Professor & Director at Chapman Law School's Environmental Land Use and Real
Estate Law Program
(
• Elizabeth Hansburg, People for Housing Orange County Director(elizabeth@peopleforhousing.org)
3
i Raymond Hiemstra, Sierra Club Orange County Conservation Committee Chair
(
Chris Gaarder, Policy Advisor to Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do
(
This email was sent to caruther@uci.edu
why did 1 get this unsubscribe from this list, update subscription preferences
Associated Students of UC Irvine Office of the President • G244 Student Center Irvine, CA 92617 USA
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Kelaher, Selena
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:16 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: In support of 2525 Main Street
Selena Kelaher, AICP
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency I M20
20 Civic Center Plaza I Post Office Box 1988 1 Santa Ana, CA 92702
skelaher ,,santa-ana.oro I Direct Phone: (714) 667-2740
From: Lewis Wood [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 3:15 PM
To: Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Fwd: In support of 2525 Main Street
Hello Selena
Please be sure the City Council members get the letter and pies below.
Thank you
Lewis
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lewis Wood <
Subject: In support of 2525 Main Street
Date: February 5, 2019 at 2:53:35 PM PST
To: mpulidogsama-ana.ore, vsarmicmo(a,sama-ana.org, dpenalozagsanta-ana.org, "Solorio,
Jose" <JSolorio a,santa-ana.org>, ei lesias a,santa-ana.orQ, rreyna e,santa-ana.org,
j villeaasgsanta-ana.org
Cc: Jeanette Wood <
Dear City Council
My wife and I support the development known as the Addington. We believe that Santa Ana
needs to develop and create destinations just like Anaheim, Fullerton and Irvine have done. Main
Place was no accident and it is the perfect location to have a destination that is vibrant and
competes with the best. Santa Ana was on the road to creating destinations but we got hit hard
with the recession. We need to have a vision of what Main Place and surrounding community
can be. The Addington will bring needed high-end density to invigorate Main Place. Main Place
can be a competitive destination for shopping, entertainment, restaurants and businesses if we
have the vision to see what it can be.
N]
•
There are many well to do high-end residential neighborhoods in California that have adjacent
high-density development on the edges, including high-density residential. This is what makes
walkable neighborhoods are when you add in destination places for eating, entertainment and
services. We all want to be able to live in our homes and walk to near by groceries, eateries,
movies, etc. And we can make that happen. We can get out of our cars and walk right in our
neighborhoods. It will be others that will drive here from other neighborhoods. That creates
vitality. And tax base. It makes sense. And it will increase our home values.
This 2525 Main Street development should be approved because it is good for all the residents of
Santa Ana and for the City's coffers.
These photos are not Santa Ana nor should they be, but we can have a similar vision that we all
can walk to:
��B , ,, s:° �� M a
+. 41 ��+'X v'S xr 3 ''"i
g vF
AT
t t C> 3 k
��. � > � ny �$°�•V �,.�. � �� a & ar4.�� �
h
1 fta } IV ro �� •3 5N+a p s
AS
.t
111111611
d
A .']"i
Sincerely
Lewis and Jeanette Wood
Park Santiago Neighborhood
Orozco, Norma
From: marc trimble <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:27 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Addington
February 5, 2019
Mayor Miguel Polido
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council Members,
I am a proud Santa Ana resident writing to express my support for The Addington project. It's clear to me that this project will provide
our community with significant benefits in comparison to just another office building, which is currently allowed by right on that site.
Throughout this planning process, I have been impressed by the developer's willingness to seek our input and actually listen to what
we have to say. You would be hard pressed to find a developer or project that would be a better neighbor.
I realize that there is a loud chorus of Park Santiago residents that oppose this project, but I want to make clear that there are plenty of
us that support The Addington. This project brings with it upgrades to Santiago Park, free security patrols in our neighborhood, and
new funds for the City to use towards police patrols, homeless programs and other services. These important benefits make me excited
for the future of this community.
I sincerely hope you see the big picture and the improvements and benefits that The Addington will bring to the neighborhood and
City of Santa Ana as a whole. I implore you to improve this project and secure a brighter future for our residents.
Thank you,
Marc and Liz Trimble
9
Santa Ana City Council Members
Received at City Council
Meeting 2/19/2019
2/5/2019
Subject: 2525 Main St. and Sound Planning for the Future of Santa Ana
Dear City Council Members,
I am pro -development of the 2525 Main parcel, and I want what is good for the future
of Santa Ana. In order to attract solid growth in this city, the development of this
property must fit current zoning laws for Professional and Administrative office use.
We as a City have an opportunity and a responsibility to create something fantastic with
2525 by building a tech incubator/hub campus where start-ups with angel investors can
work on next generation technology. I work in the tech field implementing cutting edge
solutions, and I know 1) that the medical technology field is hot, 2) St. Joe's and other
research institutions as well as universities are close by, and 3) if you offer a technology
centric workplace with a relaxed campus atmosphere, these businesses will come. These
companies, as they grow, will move into larger quarters in the same area if the pricing
and environment is attractive because they know people will want to continue to walk
to work, entertainment venues, gyms, grocery stores, and restaurants. There is no
reason to believe that the new office development at Main Place won't fit that bill. We
only have to look at Silicon Beach in LA with unaffordable housing and commercial space
costs as well as the price point and caliber of the 3500+ rental units within half a mile of
this property to know that this is exactly the business solution that could make North
Santa Ana a sought after place to live and work.
North Santa Ana residential neighborhoods have already proven they can be good
neighbors with businesses. We also know what happens to historical neighborhoods
located next to high density housing with underallocated parking. There is no reason to
believe that things will be any different in the future when we look at City Place today
and the fact they felt strongly enough about PRISMA residents taking over their parking
spots to post official signs telling them to discontinue doing so.
In keeping with the NIMBY/YIMBY labeling that's been flying around on this issue, I
believe the folks who are pro workplace development within existing zoning rules for
the 2525 site are in fact YIMBYs. YES, WE BELIEVE THE CITY GOT IT RIGHT WHEN IT
DESIGNATED THIS PROPERTY FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE USE!
We want that in our backyard.
.�Q
I wish the NIMBYs who are against providing a cutting edge forward thinking workplace
environment within walking distance of existing neighborhoods and those new 3500
units would take the "greater good" into account by making it possible to increase
housing while helping to actually minimize the environmental impact of the increased
population, vehicle traffic, pollution and parking in the area.
I ask you not to buy into what the developer would have you believe ... that he has a God
given right to control the narrative and your votes because of his donations to the City,
etc., that you have to take whatever he offers whenever he offers it because you have
no other choice, that you are not in a position of strength representing a vital city with
choices at the bargaining table, and that you should continue to promote the current
situation (as lamented by Councilwoman Michelle Martinez in a City Council meeting
last year) where 70+ % of the people who live in Santa Ana work outside of the city.
Please help increase the vibrancy of Santa Ana by encouraging people to embrace a
live/work city with a tastefully designed tech hub such as that which is possible if you
make the responsible future oriented decision to maintain the professional and
administrative zoning of the 2525 property.
Respectfully,
Christine Denny-Helvig