Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E (GENERAL COMMENTS)
75E GENERAL COMMENT 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 Via Email and U.S. Mail November 28, 2018 Candida Neal, Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 cneal(i Santa-ana.org Maria D. Huizar, City Clerk Clerk of the Council Office City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92702 clerk(a,ci. s anta-ana. ca.us Re: CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for the First American Title Co. Site (Downtown) Project aka 4" and Main Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour, Ms. Neal, Ms. Bernal, and Ms. Huizar: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 652 and its members living in the City of Santa Ana ("LiUNA"), regarding the First American Title Co. Site (Downtown) Project aka 4th and Main Mixed Use Project, including all actions related or referring to the proposal to construct a new commercial/residential mixed-use development consisting of 8,900 square feet of commercial spare and 2118 residential units, with 341 onsite parking spaces, on two parcels located at 114 E. Fifth Street (Parcel l) and 117 & 119 E. Fifth Street (Parcel 2) in the City of Santa Ana ("Project"). We hereby request that City of Santa Ana ("City") send by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following: • Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091. • Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), including, but not limited to: I November 28, 2018 CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for First American Title Co. Site (Downtown) aka 4th and Main Mixed Use Project Page 2 of 2 • Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA. • Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4. • Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9. • Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092. • Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. • Notices of approval and/or determination to cant' out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notices of determination that a project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. • Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152. Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(1), and Government Code Section 65092, which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. In addition, we request that the City of Santa Ana send to us via email or U.S. Mail a copy of all Planning Commission, and City Council meeting and/or hearing agendas. Please send notice by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to: Richard Drury Hannah Hughes Lozeau Drury LLP Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Hannah Hughes Legal Assistant Lozeau I Drury LLP Via Email and U.S. Mail November 29, 2018 Candida Neal, Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 cneal santa-ana.org Maria D. Huizar, City Clerk Clerk of the Council Office City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92702 clerk@ci.santa-ana.ca.us Re: CPQA and Land Use Notice Request for the Main Place Mall Transformation Project Dear Mr. Pezeshkpour, Ms. Neal, Ms. Bernal, and Ms. Huizar: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 652 and its members living in the City of Santa Ana ("LiUNA"), regarding the master plan prepared for the Main Place Mall Transformation Project including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of up to 1,900 residential units, 400 hotel rooms, 1,400,000 total square feet of commercial space, and up to 750,000 square feet of office space, using the existing mall as the core of the property located at 2800 North Main Street in the City of Santa Ana ("Project"). We hereby request that City of Santa Ana ("City") send by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to our fnrn at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions; and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following: • Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091. z November 29, 2018 CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for Main Place Mall Transformation Project Page 2 of 2 • Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), including, but not limited to: • Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA. • Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report ("FIR") is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4. • Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9. • Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092. • Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. • Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notices of determination that a project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. • Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152. Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is Filed pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. In addition, we request that the City of Santa Ana send to us via email or U.S. Mail a copy of all Planning Commission and City Council meeting and/or hearing agendas. Please send notice by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to: Richard Drury Hannah Hughes Lozeau Drury LLP Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, q4--4zl,& Hannah Hughes Legal Assistant Lozeau I Drury LLP Via Email and U.S. Mail November 30, 2018 Candida Neal, Planning Manager Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 eneal@santa-ana.org santa-ana.org Maria D. Huizar, City Clerk Clerk of the Council Office City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor Santa Ana, CA 92702 clerk@ei.santa-ana.ca.us Re: CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for the 4th and Mortimer Project Dear Mr. Gomez, Ms. Neal, Ms. Bernal, and Ms. Huizar: I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 652 and its members living in the City of Santa Ana ("LiUNA"), regarding the 4th and Mortimer Project including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a new commercial/residential mixed-use development consisting of 7,270 square feet of commercial space and 133 residential units, on two city blocks. Block A will consist of a 5 -story building with a 4 -story, 210 -stall parking structure and will include 93 residential units and Block B will consist of a 3 -story building with 40 private garages and 40 residential units, located at 409 E. 4th Street (Block A) and 509 E. 4th Street (Block B) in the City of Santa Ana ("Project"). We hereby request that City of Santa Ana ("City") send by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivisions, and/or supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other forms of assistance from the City, including, but not limited to the following: • Notice of any public hearing in connection with the Project as required by California Planning and Zoning Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65091. • Any and all notices prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), including, but not limited to: November 30, 2018 CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for 41 and Mortimer Project Page 2 of 2 • Notices of any public hearing held pursuant to CEQA. • Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4. • Notices of any scoping meeting held pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9. • Notices of preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092. • Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. • Notices of approval and/or determination to carry out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notices of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notices of determination that a project is exempt from CEQA, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law. • Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA. • Notice of determination, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21108 or Section 21152. Please note that we are requesting notices of CEQA actions and notices of any public hearings to be held under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code governing California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is tiled pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code Section 65092, which requires agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. In addition, we request that the City of Santa Ana send to us via email or U.S. Mail a copy of all Planning Commission and City Council meeting and/or hearing agendas. Please send notice by electronic mail, if possible or U.S. Mail to: Richard Drury Hannah Hughes Lozeau Drury LLP Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, q440�%64-2 Hannah Hughes Legal Assistant Lozeau I Drury LLP Orozco, Norma From: Dale Helvig < Sent: Tuesday, February O5, 2019 11:37 AM To: eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; City Council; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Reyna, Roman; Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia Cc: Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh; Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena; McLoughlin, Mark Subject: 2019 -02 -OS Letter to City Council (Rev.1) Attachments: 2019 -02 -OS Letter to CC Rev 1.pdf; City Document on 2525.pdf I would like to add the following comments in addition to the comments made in the attached file: 1. Changing the general plan should only be done when the change is to the greater benefit of the public. I believe this project is not for the greater benefit of the public. 2. The other high density projects mentioned in the staff report are NOT next to single family homes. 3. We should be NOT be converting 2525 into this high-density project that is next to over 1100 homes that are over 50 years old. As I mentioned to you in a letter dated Sept 18th: "the General Plan Housing Element [page 56] has a different viewpoint: "Santa Ana has residential, commercial, and industrial areas that have cultural or historic significance to the community. Residential neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, French Park, Floral Park, Wilshire Square, Eastside, Washington Square, and Heninger Park residential neighborhoods. The City is also known for its historic Mexican barrios, including the Logan, Lacy, Delhi, and Santa Anita neighborhoods, which date to the late 1880s. Several of these are recognized as historical districts, while others are not." 4. The Envision map should not be used a reference point by the developer. The Envision map is clearly identified as a drz.ii docui,7erE. 5. These are market rate apartments with rents projected to be between $2000 for a studio to over $3800 for a three bedroom 6. This property is listed in City documents as being part of Park Santiago [see attached file]. 7. It has been mentioned several times that there are over 3700 housing units scheduled to be built within 0.5 miles of the 2525 site. We are only opposed to the additional 496 units this applicant wants. 8. The property at 2525 is not currently zoned for residential. Land Use is correctly identified as Professional Administrative Office (PAO), with a zoning of Professional (P). Develop it accordingly. 9. This project is a round peg is square hole. Not every project deserves to be built just because of a perceived financial windfall. Look at the dollars closely. The net new General Fund revenue in real value (2017$) is projected to be approximately $13.6 million, or $544K per year. Not the reported nominal value of $23. 5million, or $940K per year. This also assumes a vacant lot for the next 25 years. Numbers are based on 517 units. 10. According to the EIR, fifteen freeway segments analyzed have a failing Level of Service (LOS) in 25 of the 30 data points measured. The EIR says traffic is not significant. 11. The EIR for Main Place, competed in the 1990's, did not address the 2525 project; the EIR for 2525 did not address the Main Place projects. The EIR for 2525 does not look at cumulative affects by ignoring the Main Place project, but you can. 12. The developer has said this is moderate density apartment. It is high-density apartments. 13. The listed population of 955 is not as the EIR states "conservative". The "extensive" leasing agreement they reference allows up to 1252 residents without being is violation of the lease. YJ 14. After the EIR was presented as final the City admitted the final EIR is incorrect. The location of the emergency access drive approach as proposed will potentially impact three of the existing 100 foot, 100 -year old palm trees located within the public right-of-way on Edgewood. With the widening of Edgewood the remaining 100 foot palms could be impacted as well. The point, and other issues were ignored or overlooked when the city issues the Final EIR. 15. Simple equation. We have not increased the size of the city. Santa Ana density will continue to increase. Park Santiago population could increase by as much as 27 percent. DENSITY = Respectfully, Ila A.It /L. Dale A Helvig POPULATION LAND SPACE Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) Dale Helvig February 5, 2019 Mayor Pulido and City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81h Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting (Revision 1) It is extremely hard to condense over 4000 pages supplied by the applicant and city into a concise document. I did my best. Attachment 1 Letter to Mayor and City Councilmembers dated January 27, 2019 Attachment 2 Marked up copy of the Staff Report presented to the City Council on the 2525 Main Residential Development [UPDATED] Attachment 3 Letter to Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning dated Subject: 2525 N. Main Residential Development Sunshine Meeting Rebuttal Attachment 4 Letter to Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers dated lune 5, 2018 Subject: Specific Developments Next to Residential Zoning (111) Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Q1t. A. It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance (NSAPA) Attachment 1 Dale Helvig January 27, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 811 Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting The residents of Santa Ana are deeply concerned over the applicant's desire to seek the approval of several discretionary applications for developing their property. While we aren't opposed to development, we are opposed to the applicant asking for discretionary approvals that would allow them to create something that is supported by few, other than people receiving funds from the applicant and a few citizens of the community. We would like to see the Main Street gateway to Santa Ana pop. One idea is to have Discovery Science Center pedestrian walkway span Main St. like the one connecting the Performing Arts Center to So. Coast Plaza. Changing the General Plan is serious. The Mayor of Laguna Niguel, Elaine Gennawey, put it well when presented with a similar situation: "When you're entering Laguna Niguel, you know you're in Laguna Niguel, and that's by design," Gennawey said. "Changing the general plan should only be done when the change is to the greater benefit of the public. Increasing 35 homes to 60 is almost double the number of homes, I can't approve the change of the general plan because it's not for the greater benefit of the city or its residents." We're not Laguna Niguel, nor are we Los Angeles. We are Santa Ana and proud of it. We don't want McMansion's and we don't want high density or high intensity developments encroaching upon single-family homes like in Los Angeles. The video presentation the applicant showed the Planning Commission at the November 26th and January 14th meeting, and the one they will most likely show you, said they are a locally family owned business. They are not. They both live in Los Angeles with one of the "owners" living in a McMansion in a neighborhood similar to that found in Santa Ana. Page 1 of 17 Dale Helvig THREE MAJOR ISSUES 1. DENSITY. Over the course of the past year the residents have repeatedly stated this project is unacceptable. We have seen the project decrease from 87.1 dwelling units per acre (DUA) to 85.1 DUA, to 83.6 DUA and now the staff recommendation is 80.9 DUA. Not much of a change. The80.9 DUA still is more than double ANY project other Specific Development that is next to R1 zoning in Santa Ana that is in existence or scheduled to be built. Table 5, Project Density Compared to Approved Apartment Projects in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission leads you to believe the 81 DUA is the new normal. What Table 5 does not allude to is all these properties share a common boundary with commercial or industrial property. I have attached my own Table of Specific Developments in Santa Ana Adjacent to Residential Developments (RI). The densest property in this table is the Solare Apartment Homes, a 3 -story, 38.9 DUA apartment complex located on 17" and English next to the Santa Ana River. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA: We have not been opposed to the other 3666 units that have been added or will be added within 0.5 miles. We are opposed to, as the applicant has told us, a project on our doorstep. The applicant wants to add a 6 -story mega -apartment complex next to homes that are of historic significance to the community (General Plan Housing Element [page 56]). This is wrong. The applicant then wants to provide funding to help the neighborhood obtain historic status. In addition, the building has an ultra -modern contemporary design with an exposed entertainment deck on the roof of the Stn floor. Their architecture firm has stated this is what it must be due to the size. Santa Ana can and should do much better than this. 3. QUALITY OF LIFE: This project, at this location, will impact the quality of life of the residents of Santa Ana. It adds a very dense site to an already very congested area in Santa Ana. When looking at the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic times and the 15 evaluated freeway access points (30 data points) 22 of those data points currently receive a failing grade. Think of what it will be like after the completion of all the other projects that are currently approved. The EIR lists many General Plan Goals which are not environmentally related. However, when challenged or asked to include others, the comments are dismissed. The fact remains this project will compromise the quality of life of the residents of Santa Ana. Page 2 of 17 Dale Helvig EIR AREAS OF CONCERN 1. 1 think the single most important comment I can make on the EIR is what is printed in the Executive Summary of the EIR (pagel-1): "An EIR is a public document designed to provide the governmental agency decision - makers and the public with an analysis of potential environmental consequences". An EIR is not the sole tool that should be used in evaluating a project. Community input, long-term economic and social impacts should also be evaluated. 2. OMISSION OF THE MAIN PLACE TRANSFORMATION PROJECT. The EIR omitted looking at the Main Place Transformation Project. The EIR response is: "An environmental impact report's evaluation of cumulative impacts may be based on a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)). "Probable future projects" include those for which an actual development application has been filed and for which actual environmental review is underway (San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74). Based on the above, the Draft EIR includes a list of past, present, and probable future cumulative projects for which applications were submitted to lead agencies prior to publishing of the NOP on February 12, 2018." This list forms the basis for the Draft EIR's cumulative impacts analyses. Future projects for which applications were submitted to the City after the NOP was released, such as the Main Place Mall Transformation Project, are therefore not included in baseline conditions or the list of cumulative projects provided as Draft EIR Table 4-1." I contend that since the Main Place EIR was completed in the 1990's it is a known probable future project. When you have two projects at least one of them needs to address the other in its cumulative list. Main Place should have been included in the EIR for the 2525 development. The fact that the new owner of Main Place submitted a new plan in May 2018 is irrelevant. The Main Place EIR did not evaluate the 2525 N. Main Residential Development, therefore the 2525 N. Main Residential Development EIR should have evaluated Main Place to ensure cumulative effects were addressed. Page 3 of 17 Dale Helvig EIR AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) 3. ERRORS IN THE REVIEW OF THE EIR. The Planning Department has admitted an error was made in the evaluation of a comment made by a resident. They now realize the location of the emergency access drive approach as proposed will potentially impact 3 out of 11 of the existing 100 -foot palm trees within the public right-of-way on Edgewood. Most of the remaining 100 -foot palm trees are in jeopardy as well. It is unacceptable that this issue was ignored. The street needs to be widened but the EIR does not address this fact. There are other errors in the EIR that they have overlooked as well. METER .jJ EDGEWOOD ROAD J 4. IMPACTS RELATED TO AESTHETICS. It will remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. I have yet to see what mitigating steps have been taken to reduce the effects. 5. SETBACKS. East and West setbacks are less than the current professional zoning. Legado at the Met was provided 30 -foot setbacks and MacArthur is even a wider street. 6. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA). According to the staff report the RHNA needs allocation for the period 2014-2021 is 405 units and the Total Remaining RHNA is 167. Using the developers numbers this goal will be met without building the 2525 Main Residential Development. The RHNA report will be completed in March of 2019. Page 4 of 17 Dale Helvig EIR AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) 7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. The revenue numbers in the EIR should be looked closely. The analysis is for a development of 517 units. We know this isn't the case. The values presented are nominal and real value (2017$). The real net income in 2017$ over 25 years is $13.59 million (See Page 314 of the Exhibit File). This is $544K per year (2017$) over 25 years which is substantially less than the reported $1.226 million per year being advertised by the applicant. The fiscal Impact analysis in Exhibit 8 is an analysis prepared by The Concord Group (RSG was retained by The Concord Group). You should look at Exhibit 8 for the full story. The economic analysis in the staffing report quotes a FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS done in Dec. 2017. These number have yet to be revised to reflect the reduced scope of the project. S. ACCESS TO THE PROJECT SITE. This is still undetermined. One of the staff recommendations is to remove access on Edgewood Road to reduce the potential for cut -through traffic into the Park Santiago neighborhood (Option C). However, the applicant is proposing to provide a secondary access/egress point at the Santiago Park Drive/Walkie Way and Main Street intersection (Option B). They state it's not a required element of the project, but would allow for an additional point of access to the development. However, approval would be required from the Parks and Recreation Department, the State Office of Grants and Local Services and the National Park Service. To my knowledge this communication channel has not even been exercised. Approving the project with this unknown sets it up for failure as the use of the park for vehicular access would require the replacement of lost park square footage. The building plan should be based on the implementation of Exhibit "F" no matter what approval is granted. Page 5 of 27 Dale Helvig EIR AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) PARK SANTIAGO. Park Santiago is not a registered historic district, but it is a historic resource and should be treated as such. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a), the term "historical resources" includes the following: "(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(8) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1." The EIR response to this comment is: 'This policy [Urban Design Element Policy 2.4] is not relevant to the proposed project. As described in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, Park Santiago is not identified by the General Plan or other City designation as a historic district." The General Plan Housing Element [page 56] has a section titled Historic Neighborhood Preservation. It states "Santa Ana has residential, commercial, and industrial areas that have cultural or historic significance to the community. Residential neighborhoods include but are not limited to [highlighted for emphasis], French Park, Floral Park, Wilshire Square, Eastside, Washington Square, and Heninger Park residential neighborhoods. The City is also known for its historic Mexican barrios, including the Logan, Lacy, Delhi, and Santa Anita neighborhoods, which date to the late 1880s. Several of these are recognized as historical districts, while others are not. In addition to preservation strategies for individual structures, the City could explore strategies to identify and preserve neighborhoods or elements thereof that are locally considered worthy of preservation efforts, but not necessarily individually eligible for a formal state or national historic designation." Page 6 of 17 Dale Helvig EIR AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) 10. BUS SERVICE. There is a bus route along Main Street, but the bus stop is located 0.3 miles to the north for the northbound route, southbound is conveniently located. However, these buses do not support the needs of a major transit stop in accordance with CEQA requirements. The buses do not stop every 15 minutes during peak hours. § 21054.3. MAJOR TRANSIT STOP "Major transit stop" means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The EIR response to this is: Response 37: [page 850 of 1024] The comment is incorrect. The 2016 RTP/SCS defines a bus, as a transit mode comprised of rubbertired passenger vehicles operating on fixed - routes and schedules over roadways; and that Bus Rapid Transit is service that seeks to reduce travel time through measures such as traffic signal priority, automatic vehicle location, dedicated bus lanes, limited -stop service and faster fare collection policies. As described by the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Executive Summary, planning for additional housing and jobs near transit includes provision of housing along bus transit corridors, and expansion of transit includes new local and regional bus services. The RTP/SCS describes that High Quality Transit Areas are defined as locations within one-half mile of a fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of every 15 minutes or less during peak commuting hours. There are currently two express bus service stops (for Route 53) within 0.5 -mile of the project site...." They even go to the point of providing a picture of a bus to their weak EIR response: "...Additionally, the graphic provided in this response was taken from the SCAG website related to transit planning activities to provide information _-.0100 -. ^ related to "what SCAG has in mind when they say public transportation". The fact is this route does NOT connect to both north and south "Major transit stops" and it does NOT run every 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Page 7 of 17 Dale Helvig OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN 1. DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER. The Discovery Science Center serves about 525,000 visitors a year and hopes to grow annual attendance to 1 million. We should be doing so much more to support the Discovery Science Foundation. The future is in the children's hands and the Discovery Science Foundation does a tremendous amount of good in this area. The City of Santa Ana needs to assist them in anyway they can. 2. PARKING. Specific Development zoning means the city can bypass certain municipal codes to accommodate development, it does not mean that it must. The Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires 1420 parking spots, the applicant wants 904 spaces and the staff recommendation is for 2.0 spaces/unit or 952. Tandem parking was NOT in the original proposal, it now has 150 stalls as they continue to squeeze the development. The applicant says 904 is more than enough. I'm sure they said the same thing when seeking entitlements for Prisma. City Place needed to post signs in their parking lot to inform the resident of Prisma of the following: "NO PARKING BYPRISMA RESIDENTS OR GUESTSATANYTIME." These signs were put up prior to Prisma having a 50% occupancy rate. This is what we can expect if we don't follow the SAMC. 3. PARKING STRUCTURE. The 9 -level parking structure will extend 2 -levels above the residential building. 4. SUNSHINE MEETING SIGN -IN SHEETS. Staff report indicate 263 people attended. Not everyone was able to sign in since the doors were opened late and only 2 tables were used to get everyone signed -in. Over 450 people attended. Rebuttal is attached. 5. OPEN SPACE. Is the project taking open space credit for Juliet style balconies, I can't tell. 6. CONDOMINIUMS. Applicant indicates desire to convert project to condominiums and understand this would have to be approved by the City. However, the damage will be done if we allow this project with no further ability to control parking and occupancy. With this is mind it is even more important to understand the effects of an uncontrolled population of people and parking requirements. We need to know the maximum occupancy now. Page 8 of 17 Dale Helvig OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN (continued) 7. MASS TRANSIT. The project is touting proximity to mass transit (nearest northbound pickup is 0.4 miles). The project is touting proximity to the freeway. What transportation mode of do you think will be used by the residents that need to earn $80-$152K per year to afford this units? It won't be the bus. Traffic will be a nightmare! Parking will be a nightmare! 8. ENVISION MAP. Still can't believe this is even being mentioned. The Envision Map is not an approved City document. A parcel of land that is located across the street from 2525, and is less than 8000 square feet, is also listed as a site for "Highrise (unlimited density)". The applicant assumed a risk when he based his purchase on a draft document. The map clearly stated: "NOTE: "The map represents a conceptual effort [bolded for emphasis] and its contents are in a draft format and do not represent any formal efforts to rezone or redesignate properties shown. [bolded for emphasis] " This map is no longer available, but it did provide a fair warning to anyone wishing to use the map. 9. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. It is said in the reports that architectural styles of single-family homes often do not translate well to multi -storied buildings. Orange Architects said this is true unless the scale of the project is reduced. Page 9 of 17 Dale Helvig RESOLUTION NO.2019-xx — EXHIBIT 2 1. While we disagree with building this project, I would like to address the Development Agreement. It is incomplete and has received NO INPUT from residents opposing the project. I find the Developers Agreement Section 1 and Section 2 to be in direct conflict with Santa Ana General Plan. 2. WHEREAS, the Development Agreement came before the Planning Commission for a duly noticed public hearing on January 14, 2019. At that hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve said Development Agreement; and I recommend this not be approved for the following reasons: 2.1. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that by entering into the Development Agreement: (i) the City will promote orderly growth and quality development on the Property in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan; and, (ii) significant benefits will be created for City residents and the public generally from increased employment, housing, parks and/or park improvements; and The General Plan would need to be revised and some sections of the General Plan would be placed in jeopardy. I'll speculate and say the applicant will say the EIR address this. However, this is not an environmental issue, it's the Santa Ana General Plan. General Plan Land Use Element [page 12]: Goal 3 Preserve and improve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. Policy 3.1 Support development which provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. Policy 3.2 Foster communication between the City, residents, and neighborhood associations. Policy 3.3 Coordinate City programs and activities in neighborhoods. Policy 3.4 Continue proactive code enforcement programs and activities. Policy 3.5 Encourage new development and/or additions to existing development that are compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood. Page 10 of 17 Dale Helvig RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx— EXHIBIT 2 (continued) Goal 4 Protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life. Goal 5 Ensure that the impacts of development are mitigated. Policy 5.1 Promote development which has a net community benefit, and enhances the quality of life. Policy 5.2 Protect the community from incompatible land uses. Policy 5.3 Minimize the impact of future right-of-way expansion on existing development and neighborhoods through the use of transportation system management programs and traffic demand management to relieve traffic congestion. Policy 5.4 Support land uses which are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element. Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. Policy 5.10 Support a circulation system which is responsive to the needs of pedestrians and vehicular travel. 2.2. Goal 6. Reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety." The staff report says this project supports This is not true. 2.2.1. A market rate project is not going to reduce overcrowding in Santa Ana. It will increase the population in the surrounding area by 27% with the addition of over 1000 people to the area. To put it simply: DENSITY = POPULATION LAND SPACE 2.2.2. Density will increase with this project and overcrowding will not decrease. Page 11 of 17 Dale Helvig RESOLUTION NO. 2019-xx— EXHIBIT 2 (continued) 2.3. General Plan Land Use Element [page 60]: "These areas [PAO] are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses." The current land use designation is correct. 2.4. General Plan Land Use Element: [page A-22] "The Museum District located between the Downtown and Main Place/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowers Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers." 2.5. [Page 4 of 9] "the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes which connect to the Anaheim Regional Transportation Authority which provides rail service throughout California and is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails." This is a half-truth. There is a bus route along Main Street, but the bus stop is located 0.3 miles to the north for the northbound route, southbound is conveniently located. However, these buses do not support the needs a major transit stop in accordance with CEQA requirements. The buses do not every 15 minutes during peak hours. § 21064.3. MAJOR TRANSIT STOP "Major transit stop" means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The fact is neither of the northbound or southbound routes connect to both the north and south "Major transit stops" and, neither the northbound or southbound routes run every 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods as required by § 21064.3. MAJOR TRANSIT STOP. 2.6. GATEWAY. Staff report states: In addition, the of the General Plan identifies the site as a Gateway. I respectfully disagree. The northern gateway is Main Place/City Place. [Urban Design Element page 15 and A-161 Page 12 of 17 Dale Helvig DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 1. The City Attorney should review this document PRIOR to it being presented to the Planning Commission. It is poorly written and does not protect the City or the residents that will be impacted. 2. WHEREAS. "WHEREAS" should be added to state the Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Park Santiago neighborhood. 3. WHEREAS. I disagree with most of these RECITALS. I don't believe it is in the best the best interests of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana. 3.1. to realize significant economic, recreational, park, open space, educational, social and public facilities benefits 3.2. will enable the CITY to fund much needed capital improvements and provide much needed public services and will therefore also have a major, beneficial economic impact on the City; and 3.3. Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Santa Ana General Plan and any specific plan applicable thereto; and 3.4. development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; 3.5. the best interests of the citizens of the City of Santa Ana and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 4.1. [2.4] Term of Agreement is listed as four years. It should be 55 years. 4.2. [2.7] Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the stated Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.4 (which is the term of four (4) years). Page 13 of 17 Dale Helvig Lu _ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 (continued) 1. PUBLIC BENEFITS 1.1. PUBLIC ART. Dollar value of art should be provided versus relying on accounting to determine value. It should also be identified that this Public Art should be installed at a prime location visible to the public. 1.2. SANTIAGO PARK MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTION. What's with the constant need to address the entry monument? Aren't the monuments consistent with other monuments within the City? Is the One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the maintenance of the neighborhood entry monuments in addition to the $1.4M? 1.3. PARK SANTIAGO NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFITS PACKAGE. OWNER has met with residents of Park Santiago and has agreed to provide the following. The owner met with members of the PSNA and made a presentation. However, NO negotiations occurred at this or any subsequent meeting. (c) Park Santiago Neighborhood Benefits. OWNER has met with residents of Park Santiago and has agreed to provide the following amenities: (1) Limited access to onsite amenities in a manner to be determined by OWNER as reasonably acceptable to Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. This is a meaningless statement. Reasonably acceptable is undefined. (2) Amazon locker location (3) Security patrol in the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park Patrol area: Project, Park Santiago and Park Santiago area as depicted on attached Exhibit "H" b. Type of patrol: Periodic roving security twenty-four (24) hours a day. c. Term: 55 years subject to annual review during which review it may be determined that such term shall end earlier. (Hard to enforce if DA is only in effect for four years (see GENERAL PROVISIONS page 5). It also does not address who is part of the review process and who has the authority to terminate the agreement. (4) Neighborhood entry monuments will be installed by OWNER. (Again....why?) Page 14 of 17 Dale Helvig DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 (continued) (d) Park Santiago Historic District. City shall survey residents to determine community support for the designation of the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association as a historical district on the City's Historical Register. If, in the City's reasonable opinion, the community is generally supportive of pursuing the historic register designation, Owner shall pay all costs and expenses associated with processing the application, including reimbursing the City for costs incurred conducting the survey and any environmental review, up to a not to exceed amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). (It's interesting the applicant would support a historic district designation when they say the area isn't historic) (e) Park Santiago Public Improvements and Traffic Calming. Subject to the approval by the Executive Director of Public Works Agency and the Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency and meeting City design specifications and standards, OWNER shall design and construct the public improvements identified below prior to formal approval for occupancy or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Owner shall be solely responsible for all aspects of the public improvements including, but not limited to, the analysis, design, engineering, construction and inspection/ administration of: (1) Santiago Park neighborhood improvements at up to three locations on Edgewood and/or Bush Street to achieve traffic calming. Improvements may be based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association and may include, but not be limited to, bulb -outs, traffic circles and medians within the neighborhood streets. (2) Santiago Park Neighborhood entry monuments at Main Street/Edgewood Road, Santa Clara Avenue/Lincoln Avenue, and Santiago Street/17th Street based on input from the Santiago Park Neighborhood Association. (3) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing non -LED light and/or fixture with LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood. (I believe this has already been completed by the City) (4) A street light at the Santiago Park Drive / Main Street intersection. (5) Decorative concrete pavement within the intersection of Main Street/Walkie Way and Main Street/Santiago Park Drive. Page 15 of 27 Dale Helvig DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01(continued) 1.4. Public Improvement Maintenance Agreement. [4.4.2] his is mentioned 21 times, but a Maintenance Agreement does not exist. 1.5. Santiago Park. [4.6] In consideration for the use of certain roadways to access the Project, as more particularly described/depicted on Exhibit F (use of Santiago Park land). This should be decided prior to approval. 1.6. Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan. [4.8] The City of Santa Ana has one of the highest average number of people per household in the nation at 4.34 people per household. Owner commits to limit occupancy of the residential units within the project site to levels in compliance with local, state and federal fair housing standards. Hard to enforce once the project is converted to condominiums. This is a major reason this project should not go in. 1.7. Procedure. [6.3] If OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement. They violate the agreement, so we terminate it. How. absurd is that! 1.8. Emergency Evacuation Plan. An Emergency Evacuation Plan should be submitted and approved prior to granting approval. It an Emergency Evacuation Plan cannot be approved not only for residents of the project, but for surrounding area as well, the project should not be approved. Page 16 of 17 Dale Helvig OTHER AREAS 1. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT. Table A-1 Development Intensity Standards. FAR of 2.28! 2. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT. Exhibit A -S. Exhibit revised to show property as a Major Development Area. 3. Appendix A: Parking Memo. This analysis fails to identify the occupancy of the respective building when performing this analysis. Without knowing that, this analysis is meaningless. Respectfully, 0. A. it Dale A Hell�vig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) cc: Steve Mendoza Acting Santa Ana City Manager Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Candida Neal, Planning Manager Vince Fregoso, Principle Planner Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Alberta Christy Chair, Historic Resources Commission Phil Schaefer, Vice Chair, Historic Resources Commission Tim Rush Historic Resources Commissioner Michael C'Valle, President, Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNA) Page 17 of 17 � 11 0' I We "o-MENW, VP CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE, FEBRUARY 5, 2049 TITLE: W.Igr CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY, PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 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 (STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3,2) CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION 17 As Recommended 0 As Amended 13 Ordinance on 1't Reading 10 Ordinance on 2nd Reading C1 Implementation Resolution O Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER It is recommended that the City Council not open the public hearing and direct staff to reschedule and publish notice of public hearing to a date specific. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At its regular meeting on January 14, 2019, and after receiving public testimony on the item, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the proposed 476 -unit residential development at 2525 N. Main Street and all regulatory and implementing actions proposed. The Planning Commission recommendation of denial included not certifying the Final EIR No. 2018-01 and not adopting the findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project. Further, the Commission recommended that the Council deny Development Agreement No. 2018-03, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10. The recommendation of denial was approved by a vote of 4:2 (Contreras -Leo, Mcloughlin, Nguyen and Verino supportive of the denial motion; Alderete and Benavides opposed). Commissioner Cano recused herself from deliberations on the project due to a conflict of interest (Exhibit 8). DISCUSSION Jeremy Ogulnick, representing AC 2525 Main, LLC, submitted an application for several entitlements to facilitate the development of a 517 -unit multi -family housing project (87 du/ac) on a 5.93 -acre site at 2525 North Main Street. Based on early staff and public feedback the applicant elected to reduce the request to 496 units (84 du/ac). Specifically, the applicant is requesting the certification of the Final environmental impact report (EIR) for the project, along with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program and 7SE-1 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 2 statement of overriding considerations. Specific entitlements requested include a general plan amendment to redesignate the property from Professional & Administrative Office (PAO) to District Center (DC), and an amendment application to rezone the property from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD -93). In addition, a development agreement between the City and applicant/owner was drafted to require the modifications listed below as well as a number of community benefits: • Reduce the density to 81 dwelling units per acre, a maximum of 476 units • Revise the unit mix; reduce the number of studio and one -bedroom units to 70 percent of the project and increase the number of two and three -bedrooms to 30 percent of the project • Provide parking at a capacity of 2.0 spaces per unit • Provide courtyards along the north elevation With these project modifications and community benefits ensured, staff recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the project. At the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, 79 members of the public spoke on the item, 30 speakers supported the project, 48 opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After deliberating on the matter, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council deny the applicant's request to allow the multi -family residential development on the site. Specifically, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the increase in traffic that would result from the project, the massing and density of the project, the project's incompatibility with the surrounding community, potential adverse effects of the project on the adjacent Park Santiago neighborhood, the lack of community support for the development, potential long term impacts associated with the proposed development, and concerns with potential parking intrusion on the adjacent neighborhood. Project Location and Site Description The subject site is a 5.93 -acre parcel located at the northeast comer of Main Street and Edgewood Road. Regional access to the site is provided from the Santa Ana (1-5) Freeway via Main Street, a 6 -lane arterial roadway, and via the State Route 22 (SR -22) Freeway. The properties immediately adjacent to the site include Santiago Park to the north, single-family residential homes to the south and east and the Discovery Science Center of Orange County is across Main Street to the west. The project site is located on North Main Street, an urban corridor within the City. �he site is also located at a main entry point to the Park Santiago Neighborhood, a residential neighborhood predominantly comprised of detached single-family dwellings.) The site is currently improved with an 81,172 square foot, two-story office building with 442 parking spaces and associated mature trees and landscaping. The building has been vacant since summer 2017 and was last occupied by Wells Fargo. The Discovery Science Center of Orange County leases the parking lot for employee and overflow parking. 75E-2 Commented [DH7]: Exactly. A residential neighborhood predominantly comprised of detached single-family dwellings. EIR No, 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 3 Table 1: Project Location Information Item Information Project Address 2525 North Main Street Nearest Intersection Main Street and Edgewood Road General Plan Designation Existing: Professional & Administrative Office PAO Proposed: District Center (DC) Zoning Designation Existing: Professional (P) Proposed: Specific Development No. 93 SD -93 Surrounding Land Uses North Santiago Park — Open Space East Single -Family Residential — R1 South Single -Family Residential — R1 West Discovery Science Center—SD-65 Property Size 5.93 acres (258,310 square feet) Existing Site Development The site contains a two-story, 81,172 square foot office building with 442 parkin spaces Applicable Zoning Code Sections Existing: SAMC Chapter 41, Article III, Division 8 (Professional) Proposed: SAMC Chapter 41, Article III, Division 26 (Specific Development) Entitlements SAMC Chapter 41, Article V, Division II (Amendments and Change to District Boundaries) Project Description The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing office building and develop a high density multi -family residential development on the site. The original proposal included the development of 517 residential units wrapped around the � above ground levels of the parking �tructure _However based on staff and public feedback, the applicant elected to reduce the request to 496 units. The revised project would result in approximately 930,705 square feet of development (572,075 square feet of residential buildings and 358,630 square feet of parking structure and common open space structures) at a density of 84 dwelling units per acre, with an average unit size of 972 square feet. The floor area ratio is 2.21 which is derived by calculating the square footage of the gross building square footage (residential development and common open space, excludingthe parking structure square footage) by size ofthe property. The unit mix varies from studio units, one -bedroom units, two-bedroom units, and three-bedroom units, with [9 different floor plans proposed. The unit breakdown can be found on Table 2. The residential buildings will range from 2 -stories in height (24 feet) at the eastern portion of the site, and will tier up to 5 -stories with mezzanines (approximately 78 feet) along Main Street. The tallest element of the building will be approximately 95 feet in height as measured from the rooftop amenity/recreation deck. 75E-3 Commented [DH2[: It's a 9 -level parking structure with 2levels of the parking stmcture extending above the residential ponian of the building. (Seepages) EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 4 Table 2: Applicant Proposed Unit Mix and Unit Square Footage Unit Type Number of Units )%) Square Footage of Units Studios 73 15% 592-740 One -Bedrooms 307 62% 634-1,091 Two -Bedrooms 88 18% 909-1,472 Three -Bedrooms 28 5% 1,360-1,520 Total 496 units 100% 114 The main entry for the project would be via a driveway on Main Street. The driveway will lead to an internal drop-off area, the leasing office and guest parking spaces before leading into the gated parking structure. The parking structure is located closer to Main Street, further away from the single-family homes to the east, with the residential buildings wrapped around the structure to screen from views at the ground level. Two levels of the parking structure would extend above the residential portion of the buildi jThe applicant is proposing to provide a secondary access/egress point at the Santiago Park Drive/Walkie Way and Main Street intersection. This option is not a required element of the project, but would allow for an additional point of access to the development. If constructed, use of the park for vehicular access would require the replacement of lost park square footage with new park land of equal or greater size, utility and value. In addition, approval would be required from the Parks and Recreation Department, the State Office of Grants and Local Services and the National Park Service.l_ - The parking structure totals 358,630 square feet, with 8 -levels above grade and 1 -level below grade. A total of 904 parking spaces are proposed which is a ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit. A total of 150 tandem spaces (17 percent of the overall parking spaces) will be provided. �he applicant has provided a parking study of similar type multi -family projects that identifies a parking demand of 1.354 space per unit which would forecasts parking needs to be 672 spaces forthe project. Mable 3 below provides a breakdown of the proposed parking for the project. Table 3: Applicant Proposed Parking Unit Type Units Rate Stalls Provided Studios 73 1.00 73 One -Bedroom 307 1.00 307 Two -Bedrooms 88 2.00 176 Three -Bedrooms 28 3.00 84 Guest Parking 496 .23 114 Tandem Stalls 150 Total 496 1.80 904 spaces Staffs Proposed Total 476 2.00 952 75E-4 Commented [DH3j: How is it possible to approve a project when access points are unknown? If this option were to be pursued the design of the project would need to be changes to accommodate the land swap, unless they plan to have that layout approved upfront. Commented [DH41: The parking study that was performed fails to mention the occupancy rate at the time of study. This omission makes the study invalid for the purpose of any comparison. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 5 �he project has incorporated a contemporary architectural design.) Elements such as stone veneer, multiple brickveneers, metal panels, ceramic tile, metal canopies, fiatand metal seamed roofs all assist in conveying a modern design. The color scheme encompasses earth tones of tans, browns and greys. Courtyards are provided along Main Street, Edgewood Road and the internal east elevation to break up the massing and create distinct building sections. k addition, units along Edgewood Road will front the street, providing direct street access and assisting in activating the street.) A combination of common and private open spaces will be incorporated into the project design. Approximately, 34,630 square feet of common open space will be dispersed throughout the project. These areas will consist of ground level courtyards with amenities such as a pool and spa, seating areas, tables and chairs, shade trellis, fire pits, and enhanced landscaping. A rooftop amenity deck will also be provided that will include a pool and spa, cabanas, fire pits, lounge chairs, shade structures, a club room, and a fitness center. Other common area amenities such as a wellness room, chefs kitchen, dog wash room, bike repair room, bike share, Amazon parcel lockers, and entertainment room, will be incorporated into the building and will provide residents with opportunities for on-site services and entertainment space. In addition, brivate open space in the form of patios or balconies will be provided for each unit4 These spaces will range - from 53 to 77 square feet in size. An upscale and elaborate landscape pallet is proposed for this project. The applicant is proposing to retain the mature Ficus trees along the east property line. kn arborist report was prepared, with mitigation measures included to ensure the trees remain in a healthy condition pre- and post-construction'The report _ also identified 8 trees (7 Sweet Gum trees and 1 Cypress tree) along the eastern property line that are in an unhealthy condition and are recommended for removal. Additional trees similar in size and type to the mature trees will be planted to fill in areas where trees were removed or are missing. In addition, the applicant will raise the height of the wall adjacent to the single-family dwellings from six to eight feet in height. Given the number of parcels affiliated with this proposal, the lots will need to be combined into a single development parcel. Prior to issuance of building permits, a voluntary lot merger will need to be applied for and be approved. This application is ministerial, with no Planning Commission or City Council action required. This project is required to comply with the City's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (H00). To satisfy the provisions of the H00, applicant is proposing to pay an in -lieu fee in excess of $6,000,000. See Table 4 below for a breakdown of the proposed H00 fee. Habitable 404,746 Table 4: Housing Opportunity Fee Summary $15 per square foot Fee I Estimated Fee *As measured from the exterior walls of the residential units. This calculation does not hallways, common areas, landscape, open space or exterior stairways* 75E-5 Commented [DHS]: As explained to me by Orange Architects, Contemporary style is needed due to the size of the project Commented [DH6]: If this means front doors will be on Edgewood then this is the first wdve heard of this. We have been told the only access would be the Amazon lockers. Commented [DH7]: How is this going to be accomplished for each unit? Itishardto imagine how this will look based on the drawing provided. It looks like units on the outside of structures will have private open space facing the streets and Interior units will have private open space facing each other, not so private. Commented [DHB]: Appendix a Tree Evaluation and Preservation Study, Executive Summary states "The largest trees on site, the #117 Aleppo pine, Pinus holepensis; and #121 cypress, an unknown eupressus species, may date back to a previous site use, but are probably no more than 70 or 80 years old. The Aleppo Pine has a life expectancy of over 150 years Ihttps://selectree.calpoly.edu/tree- detail/pinus-haleoensisl. We had an independent arborist look at the tree and his evaluation is the tree is healthy, properly trimmed and expected to live another 100 years. It should NOT be removed. 171,1901 ------ Commented [DH9]: Fvl... exterior At $210,000 to $240,000 to build a low Income housing unit this equates to 25 to 29 units. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 6 Analysis of the Issues Environmental Imoact ReDort �he applicant submitted a development proposal that requires the approval of several discretionary applications. �iven the size and location of the project, as well as the proposed zoning and general plan _ - Commented [DH101: This should he a red modifications, extensive environmental review was needed. After completion of the Initial Study for the flag to everyone] project, it was determined that the California Environmental Quality Ac[ (CEQA) required the preparation and certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) for this project. The purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. To determine what potential effects would be caused by the project, the EIR analyzed issues related to Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural/Historic Resources; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services; Transportation and Circulation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; and Energy. On February 12, 2018, the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation were released to solicit comments regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR (DEIR). A scoping meeting was held on March 1, 2018 with approximately 164 people in attendance and a total of 163 written comment letters were received at the conclusion of the 30 -day public comment period. �he comments were reviewed and additional areas of analysis and studies were added to the scope of the Draft EIR as appropriate. �he comments are included Commented [DH111:1 do not see the as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. additional areas of analysis that were added. This should be Identified. The Draft EIR analyzed the direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project. In addition to analyzing fourteen environmental topic areas, the EIR also evaluated three options for access and egress to the project. The analysis included Main Street access only as proposed (Option A), access from Main Street plus a secondary access/egress driveway at the Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park intersection (Option B), and access/egress from both Main Street and Edgewood Road (Option C). Three project alternatives were also analyzed within the document. These included a no build alternative, where the existing approximately 80,000 square foot building would remain as is and be reoccupied by an office use (Alternative 1); a reduced multi -family project consisting of a 30 percent reduction in density (Alternative 2); kind build out of the site under the existing Professional zoning district development standards, which could result in an approximately 390,000 square foot two and three-story office building (Alternative 3).L - The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would require mitigation related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, construction noise and vibration, interior noise, and tribal resources. Mmpacts related to aesthetics would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.l_ _ _ _ _ On August 7, 2018, the Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment to public, City Council, Planning Commission, local, regional and state agencies, and interested parties for a 45 -day public comment review period. In addition, a Planning Commission public hearing was held on August 27, 2018 where staff presented the EIR process and environmental information to the Planning Commission and pubic and received public comments on the DEIR. To allow for additional time for public review and comment, and at 75E-6 Commented [DH12]: The 390,000 square foot building that is referenced is a theoretical building size and not one that can actually be built in Santa Ana. The building would be two-thirds that size Commented [DH 131: I'm having real hard time finding what mitigation is taking place. Even so, this remains a significant and unavoidable Impact to Park Santiago. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 7 the request of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, the City extended the DEIR public comment period by an additional two weeks. At the close of the review and comment period on October 4, 2018, a total of 44 comment letters were received on the Draft EIR, The City has evaluated the comments received from persons and agencies on the Draft EIR and Completed: detailed Response to Comments revisions to the Draft EIR including clarifications and/or corrections to Commented [DH14]: some of the detailed typographical errors, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The response to comments are incorrect. Aust will be comments, MMRP and Final EIR were published on November 15, 2018 for public review. The Draft EIR, provided to the city staff. responses to comments document, revisions to the Draft EIR, and the M MRP constitute the Final EIR for the project (Exhibit 1). FELR identified one sgnificant-and 'Impact impassociated withthis project, which pertains to $thetics. Based on the City's visual criteria related to scale, height and setbacks, it was determined that the project would result in a substantial change in views from existing conditions and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the aesthetics is result of this impact that cannot be mitigated to Moss than significant le4e a... B..a 'of Overriding Considerations is required prior to roving. the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is the process through which decision " iC, legal, social, and technological or other benefits of the proposed project `mental impacts. Development Agreement The development agreement (DA) 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 approval of the proposed project, the development agreement requires certain improvements and public benefits as part of the project (Exhibit 2). For example, the DA will memorialize requirements for public art, monetary contribution to fund physical improvements to Santiago Park, Park Santiago residents benefits such as access to on site amenities, security patrol of the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park, assistance in designating the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association as a historic district, and monetary contribution to Park Santiago Neighborhood Improvements and Traffic Calming for improvements such as street calming, traffic diversion, entry monuments, and street light upgrades. If approved, the agreement will include both deal points and project conditions for the project. Highlights of the DA include: Commented 1DH15]: and would result Ina significant and unavoidable impact to the aesthetics. Mitigation measures for aesthetics are not even addressed. Term of Agreement. rhe right to build the project as entitled for a period of four years, with an opportunityfor up to two, consecutive one-year extensions.) Extensions shall be subject to approval Commented (DH76]: rhe potential fora 6 by both the Owner and the City Manager. Prior to granting an extension, the Owner shall pay year constmctionperiodisunacceptable. Do $50,000 to the City's General Fund to compensate the City for lost revenue to be received by the NOT give them an extension. Afee of City had the project been completed within the first four years. $250,000 if not completed on time. 75E-7 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 8 2. �ublic Art. �fhe Owner shall create,-! nsta I I, and maintain apublic a rtprojectwith a value equivalent _ to 0.5% of the total construction cost of the project. The work(s) of art shall be in place prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project and shall be maintained in perpetuity by - Commented [DH17]: should include text ^ata prime location visible to the public;' Who is pan of the art selection process? We the property owner. would like a resident to participate. 3. �antiago Park Improvement Funds. �rovide funding_ for_ Santiago Park_ Maintenance_ and Commented [DH78]: This money shoWtl Improvements in the amount of $1,400,000 to the City for the construction of park improvements notbe used [.support Optiongaccess. or the owner shall be authorized by the City to construct the park improvements at the owners sole cost and expense up to $1,400,000. These park maintenance funds shall be deposited with the City within 180 days after the issuance of the first building permit for the purpose of completing park improvements including, but not limited to, installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancements as shown in Exhibit G to the Development Agreement. An additional $100,000 will be paid to the City prior to khe issuance of the first building permit for the maintenance of neighborhood entry monuments___________________________________________ Commented [DH1 91: what isso wrong with the current monuments7l 4. Park Santiago Neighborhood Benefits Package. The Developer shallrovide Park Santiago Neighborhood residents with access to on-site amenities, Amazon lockers, R4 -hour roving security patrol within the Park Santiago Neighborhood and Santiago Park as shown on Exhibit H to the __-- Commented [DH2O]: Hourly? everyshlft? Development Agreement for a 55 -year period unless determined during an annual review that the Dally? term shall end earlier. Not very specific. 5. Historic District Application. If desired by the majority of the Park Santiago Neighborhood property owners, the applicant shall pay all costs and expenses associated with processing the application for historic district consideration, including reimbursing the City for costs incurred conducting the survey and any environmental review, up to and not to exceed the amount of $150,000.1_ Park Santiago Public Improvements. The Owner shall be responsible for the analysis, design, engineering, construction and inspection/administration of traffic calming/improvements at up to three locations on Edgewood and/or Bush Street to achieve traffic calming, entry monuments at three location at Main Street/Edgewood Road, Santa Clara Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Santiago Street/ 17" Street, replacement of all non LED street lights and/or fixtures with LED street lights and/or fixtures throughout the Park Santiago Neighborhood, and Installation of a street light -and [fecorative concrete pavement with) Vi at the Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive and juin Street Intersection. Parking. Per the conditions of approval (Exhibit I to the Development Agreement) the applicant shall increase number of spaces or capacity to increase the onsite ratio of parking, including the use of valet parking, to an equivalent bf two (2) spacesper unit, Unit Mix. Per the conditions of approval (Exhibit I to the Development Agreement) the applicant shall increase the number of family units to a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the proposed units to contain 2 & 3 bedrooms. 75E-8 Commented [DH21]: This seems like a contradiction. Why would they supporta historic district designation when they say the area isn't historic? Commented [DH22]: I believe the city has already performed the LED upgrade in Park Santiago. Commented [DH23]: What is equivalent? Why not the SAM[ limit? EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 9 The agreement also includes �Iovisions f - n ent plan, live work pre ere ce jl focal sourcing plan, construction man agei a . y maintenance plans. The development agreement has been signed by the applicant indicating agreement to the terms. The agreement is not considered final until the City Council has reviewed and approved the agreement and the agreement is executed by all parties. General Plan Amendment To allow for the construction of a multi -family residential development on this parcel, a general plan amendment is required. ,currently, the land use designation for this site is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which applies to areas that are predominately professional offices and/or administrative offices or areas where such development is encouraged. 'his project will _ require an amendment to the Land Use Element to amend the General Plan Land Use designation of the site to District Center (DC) with a density of 81 dwelling units per acre (reduced from 87 du/ac based on staff recommended changes) or a floor area ratio of 2.21 (Exhibit 3). �he purpose for maintaining and supporting professional office areas are to increase employment opportunities for local residents, enhance the diversity of the Citys economic base, to develop mutually beneficial and supportive business clusters in the City and to support uses that create little to no nuisances to nearby residents or businesses. �everal properties to the north and west _ across Main Street are designated as PAO therefore work to create a professional business district. Areas such as this northern gateway of the City provide a rich employment base for many residents of the City and those in the region who work in the area. District Centers bre major activity areas of the City. Currently, several areas to the northwest, __________________ northeast, south of the Santa Ana 1-5 freeway and along Main Street north of Seventeenth Street are designated as District Centers. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors and to accommodate higher density development projects. These areas are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high-rise offices, commercial and multi -family residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural and housing opportunities within close proximity to each other, close to transportation opportunities and in prime development focus areas. Residential development withinthese areas are allowed at a If approved, the project could support several goals and policies of the Housing Element. First, the project would be consistent with Goal 2, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce _ of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Second, the project would support Goal 4, to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. Further, the project would be consistent with Policy HE2.2 to create District Centers with high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian oriented experiences. Finally, the project would be consistent with Policy HE -2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. The project would also be consistent with goals of the Land Use Element, including 7SE-9 Commented [DH24]: The current land use designation is in accordance with the General Plan land Use Element [page 60]: "These areas [PAO] are typically adjacent to low density residential neighborhoods, or are converted residential office uses." Commented [DH25]: We believe in this: increasing employment opportunities for local residents, enhance the diversity of the City's economic base, develop mutually beneficial and supportive business clusters in the City and to support uses that create little to no nuisances to nearby residents or businesses. This is what the PAO zoning is all aboutl Commented [DH26[: 2525 should not be a District Center] Commented [DH27]: To avoid being rent poor (more than 30 percent of income is used on rent) An occupant would need to earn a minimum of $801K to rent a studio and $152K to rent the smallest 3 -bedroom to avoid being rent poor. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 10 Goal Ito promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs, and �oal 6 to reduce residential overcrowding ko promotepublic health and safety. The proposed -Project-will-provide additional market rate housing in the City, thereby assisting jn addressing the shortage of available housing within the region. The project will also provide additional housing options for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The upscale multi -family development will also support Urban Design Element Goal 1 to improve the physical appearance of the City through development of a district that projects a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. The City has recently initiated the process to update its General Plan, which is the blueprint foie future development. A key component of the update is to focus new growth and development along major corridors reducing the pressure for growth in low density neighborhoods. and to identify areas for future development, including but not limited to higher density residential development. The northern section of the City, including the project site, has been identified as a potential area for more intense development. This North Main Street area is in the process of being studied in greater depth as the update process continues, with direction on the potential land use designation of the area expected within the next year. Amendment Application Commented [DH28]: Adding a complex at over 80 dwelling units per acre does NOT decrease overcrowding. It will increase the Park Santiago neighborhood population anywhere from 21 percent to 27 percent. �urrently, the zoning designation for this site is Professional (P) l Pich permits a variety of business uses Commented [DH29]: The current land use that aim to create a professional business environment and prohibits residential uses. To allow the designation is In accordance with the General construction of amulti-family residential development on this parcel, an amendment application (zone Plan Land Use Element [page 601: "These change) is required. Staff is recommending that a zone change to a Specific Development No. 93 (SD -93) areas [PAo] are typically adjacent to low designation will allow a residential development and will ensure consistency between zoning and the General Plan, assumingthe associated general plan amendment is approved (Exhibit 4). When considering a zone change it is important to look at the surrounding land uses and economic factors. The jobs to housing balance is evaluated by comparing project -generated jobs and housing units to forecasts of employment and housing, in addition an imbalance in the ratio can indicate air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting. Based on SCAG profiles and projections, Santa Ana is a jobs rich area Commented [DH30]: The city's office with 2.06 jobs per housing unit. SCAG considers an area as balanced when the jobs -housing ratio is 1.36, �� occupancy rate is could be due to the fact therefore providing more housing would reduce the ratio to 2.05, furthermore, in the second quarter of congestion Is high due to the density and 2018, the City's office occupancy rate was 13.4 percent, which is higher than the neighboring central cities � subsequent traffic it creates. The EIR has of Anaheim (10.4%), Orange (11.5%) and Tustin (10.9%) and the County as a whole (12.6%). �fherefore, the ,! failing graded of the surrounding freeway access points around this project. change from Professional to Specific Development would not be a significant impact to professional office Commented [DH37]: rromthe General districts. Plan Land Use Element: The Museum District located between the Downtown and Main Place/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowen Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers. density residential neighborhoods, or are designation be conditionally approved subject to staff recommended changes to the project. The SD. convened residential office uses." in addition, use of the site for residential development is supported as the location has elements to make the site a viable residential development. �he elements include having regional access to freeway and J� transportation systems, the site is within close proximity to educational, cultural activities, employment centers, and retail and commercial shopping opportunities. Furthermore, several nearby properties and properties along Main Street are designated as Specific Developments. The property would be developed 7SE-10 in addition, use of the site for residential development is supported as the location has elements to make the site a viable residential development. �he elements include having regional access to freeway and J� transportation systems, the site is within close proximity to educational, cultural activities, employment centers, and retail and commercial shopping opportunities. Furthermore, several nearby properties and properties along Main Street are designated as Specific Developments. The property would be developed 7SE-10 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 11 at a higher density than the nearby single-family residential uses. However, multi -family uses are often used in planning and zoning practice to buffer higher intensity uses like commercial or industrial uses from single- family residential uses and multi -family and single-family uses are more compatible in natureto each other. �he Specific Development No. 93 (SD -93) is established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents. [this new zoning designation for the - Commented [DH32]: you've got to be site is crafted to be consistent with the proposed project. If the zone change is approved, a series of site- kidding mel specific objectives, policies and development standards will be used to guide the development of the project. Specifically, the SD -93 document includes a menu of development standards which �pecify setbacks, barking, height and landscape_ requirements and includes provisions for construction and Commented[DH33]: setbacks at tegado maintenance to allow the exclusive entitlement of the residential project. The SD -93 document has been are 30 feeJim., emeet framed to include staff recommended changes to the project and prohibits future modifications to enlarge the size of the project. Approval of the proposal would allow for the construction of a high density residential development in an urbanized setting that is within close proximity to neighborhood services and amenities. �f approved, the zone change would need to be approved in conjunction with the proposed general plan amendment. �his would result in a project that is consistent with the goals and objectives of City's General -- Commented [DH34]: NSAPA does not _ Plan land use designation of District Cen ter. �fhe project will promote an urban development where office, recommend this zone change and General retail and residential activities would coexist in close proximity and in a mixed-use setting. Further, the Plan amendment change. projectwill contribute towards the improvement ofthe characterof the northern section of the City, Finally, Commented[DH357: This is not nor should the development, through the construction of the proposed public improvements and site amenities, will It be a District center for the purpose of 1 contribute to the enhancement of the area and serve as a buffer between commercial and high intensity raising the density of park Santiago by uses and the lower density residential area. 27 percent. Public Comments significant number of public comments have been received on this project, mainly voicing concerns or opposition to the project. bverthe last year emails(approximately 400 emailsare on file), letters and phone ,- Commented[DH367: The applicant calls were received and small group meetings and study sessions have been conducted. A list of the major counters with his presentation of a few comments received are summarized in the sections below. people that support the project. The 400 emails should out -way the few the applicant Community Meetings presents. On November 15, 2017, 27 calendar days after the application was submitted, the developer held a Sunshine Meeting at the Discovery Cube of Orange County and overviewed plans for a 517 -unit development, 5 -stories in height, with 910 parking spaces and access from Edgewood Road. �ignin sheets indicate 263 people attended. Minutes of the meeting including community comments made at the meeting _ and the applicant's responses were prepared by the applicant (Exhibit 5). ---- - - - -- �n early 2018 (January 30, 2018 and February 15, 2018), Manning staff coordinated meetings with the developer and the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance representatives. Approximately 20 people attended the small group meetings, including the developer, members of the North Santa Preservation Alliance, nearby neighborhood representatives and planning staff. The applicant shared a revised plan that included 505 units, a revised unit mix, the removal of the parking structure access from Edgewood Road, and modifications to the architectural style. 7SE-11 Commented [DH37]: Not everyone signed In since the doors were opened late and only 2 tables were used to get everyone signed -in. Over 450 people attended. Commented [DH381:1 have provided my response to Exhibit S. Commented [DH39]: The January 30, 2018 was a total bust. The applicant representative committed to a comprehensive update to the plan and they failed. At the February IV meeting the applicant said they fired the representative. We didn't believe them and as you know, Ms. Sapetto is still employed by the applicant and is under Investigation. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 12 A Planning Commission study session was conducted on August 27, 2018 where staff presented information on the project description, the draft environmental impact report, entitlements, vicinity, building heights, access options, unit mix, parking, and areas of consideration. The applicant also provided a presentation that overviewed the project, amenities, community benefits, concerns and support, traffic, changes made by the applicant to the project, and project benef ts. �hirty-two (32) verbal comments were received (three in support and 29 in opposition) and nine written comments were received (one in support and eight in Opposition).[ _ On September 5, 2018, the developer, members of North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, and City planning staff met to discuss the proposed project. A list of questions, comments and concerns were raised by the neighborhood. in follow up on September 24, 2018, information requested at the previous meeting was provided by staff to members of the North Santa Ana Presentation Alliance. ----------------------- Most__________________ ___ `vlost recently, on November 26, 2018 khe public hearing for the project was continued to January 14, 2019 and a second study session was conducted where staff presented information on the project, the Draft EIR, comments received, the Final EIR and draft development agreement terms. The applicant also played a video overviewing the project. During public comments 58 verbal comments were received (25 in support; 31 in opposition and two neutral) and 11 written comments were received (two in support and nine in opposition). One comment letter on the DEIR from Lozeau Drury LLP was received and written response to the comments was drafted (Exhibit 6). Density The revised project has reduced the density from 87 dwelling units per acre to 84 dwelling units per acre or a floor area ratio of 2.21. Per the General Plan, the maximum floor area ratio of the subject property and the properties to the north and west is 1.5 and the maximum dwelling units per acre of the residential properties to the east and west is 7 dwelling units per acre. As proposed, the project has higher density and floor area ratio than the surrounding properties. With the staff recommended changes to the project, the maximum density of the project will be further reduced to 81 dwelling units per acre which is within the range of densities approved for other multi -family projects in the City. ommented [DH40]: This meeting was cheduled 20 days Into a 45 day review period for the DEUR. The review period was even extended due to the comments that needed to be made. It is no wonder only 32 people expressed verbal comments. Commented [DH41J: What is not mentioned Is the continued concern of density. We were told that Commented [DH42J: No mention of the October22,2019 Planning Commission meeting where several people voiced the objection to the move to have a special Planning Commission meeting on November5'h. Mable 5: Project Density Compared to Approved Apartment Projects - Commented [DH43J: BIG DIFFERENCE HERE, NONE ofthese projects are adjacent Density Zone o single family homes, except the proposed roject. Projects The Nineteen0l 49 du/ac Metro -East Mixed Use Overlay 1901 East First Street nConstruction The Line 58 du/ac Harbor Mixed Use Specific PlanThe 3630 Westminster Avenue Heritage2001 du/ac Specific Development No. 88 Under Construction East Dyer Road65 The Marke 74 du/ac Specific Development No. 76 Constructed 100 East MacArthur Boulevard Prisma (301)301 du/ac Specific Development No. 59 Constructed East Jeanette Lane91 75E-12 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-30 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 13 The Madison 200 North Cabrilio Park Drive 94 du/ac Elan 1660 East First Street 94 du/ac 2525 North Main St.�1 du/at Height Metro -East Mixed Use Overlay Metro -East Mixed Use Overlay No. Entitled 2018 Entitled 2018 Commented [DH"]: At 496 units, this is 83.6 du/ac. This is the staff recommendation number which Is still out of the ballpark. The height limits of the Professional zone are a maximum of 35 feet/3-stories or a maximum of 25 feet/2- I Thisisthe omyproject that is adjacene eo stories within the rear 50 percent of the lot The office building to the north is 10 -stories (approximately 160 single femily homes. feet in height)`Jthe Discovery Cube to the west is approximately, 110 feet in height] and the single-family _ _ _ - Commented [DH457: This office building is dwellings to the south and east are one-story (approximately 18 feet in height). The proposed project would a quarter mileaway. be similar in height to the buildings along Main Street, however the 5 -story residential buildings would be Commented [DH46]: Discovery Cube at 3 -stories taller than the maximum allowable height in the R-1 zone of (2 -stories, 27 feet). The SD -93 110 feet is not occupied. development standards for the east portion of the building require the height to tier from five to two stories as shown on the site plan to create a transition in the building heights to the neighborhood to the east. Table 6: Professional Zone Comoarison Development Standard Professional Zone Building Height 35 feet (3 -stories) maximum 25 feet (2 -stories) maximum within rear 50% of lot (1approx. 240 feet from the east property linep_ Front Setback (west property line) Street Side Setback Interior Side Setback Rear Setback (east property line) 15 feet minimum 15 feet minimum 5 feet minimum 50 feet minimum 75E-13 Proposed Project 5 -stories with mezzanines (65 feet) -level parking structurewith rooftop amenities (90 feet)I- - _,� No building within 40 feet of the east property fine ---------' �Aaximum 25 feet (2 stories) within 40 to 66 feet of the east property,' linpl Commented [DH48]: It is a 9 -level parking structure with 2 levels Two levels of the parking structure would extend above the residential portion of the building (See page 4) Commented [DH47]: whereas the proposed project will be at 6 -stories at 116 feet fromthe east property line Commented [DH49]: As compared to the current setback requirement of a maximum of 25 feet within 240 feet of the east property line. Developer's presentation is: 5' Floor 116 feet 4'h floor 91 feet 3'^ Floor 66 feet 2ntlfloor 42 feet V floor 42 feet. feet,6inches Commented[DHSo]: Setbacks at LegadoM the Met are 30 feet. )feet, 7inchesl_ Commented [DH51]:Setbacks attegedoat --------- �� the Met are 30 feet. Commented [DH52]: Setbacks should be 15 feet. Commented [DH53]: The applicant is reducing the current setback requirements. They even present it as 42 feet versus the 40 feet, 7 inhes as described here in the staff report. Not much of a difference but it still shows the character of the applicant when EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 14 Table 7: Project Height Compared to Approved Apartment Projects Projects Height The Marke 5 levels The Nineteen0l 5 levels Prisma 301 5 levels The Line 5 levels + 6 levels of parking The Heritage 5 levels The Madison 7 levels Elan 7 levels 2525 North Main St. (proposed) levels with mezzanines + 8 levels of parking _ Bulk/Scale Bulk describes the mass of a building and scale refers to the proportional relationship of the size of the building to other structures. The project is in scale with the commercial buildings along Main Street and in scale than the residential homes to the south and east. The project has been designed with courtyards to reduce the bulk of the building and will also be tiered on the east from 2 -stories to 5 - stories. Shade/Shadow Commented [DH541: Another way of saying 5levels with mezzanine is entertainment deck on the roof of the 5u' floor. The parking structure is 9 levels, with 2 levels Two levels of the parking structure would extend above the residential portion of the Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR analyzed shade and shadow impacts. Shade and shadow studies were prepared for each calendar month. kr CEQA purposes, impacts are considered significant if shadow -sensitive uses would be shaded by the project -related structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. - and 3:00 p.m. between fall and spring, or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. between spring and fall when compared to existing conditions. �fhe CEQA threshold has been used in _ -- ---------- - ----- _ - Commented [DHSS]: Interesting point the past by Santa Ana for other projects. As proposed, the project would cast shadows on the residential neighborhood is comprised of single-family dwellings and the project is a high density multi -family housing here is the structures have limited shading properties, but not for more than 3 hours between fall and spring or for more than 4 hours between spring property in question is part of the Park effect but the proposed trees that will be and fall. a different architectural style than surrounding single-family dwellin s � s the architectural styles of installed will have a major shading effect on single-family homes often do not translate well to multi -storied buildings______________________ Commented[DH57]: our point exactly. the existing residential homes along the Neighborhood Character eastern border of the property. The Park Santiago neighborhood is characterized by large one-story and two-story homes with a variety of architectural styles (Minimal Traditionalist, Colonial Revival, Craftsman, Spanish, and Ranch). The project site also has street frontage along North Main Street which is described in the General Plan as an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intense, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. �he project is not in character with the neighborhood, which it shares two sides with, as the Commented [DH56]: As it says, the project neighborhood is comprised of single-family dwellings and the project is a high density multi -family housing is not in character with neighborhood. The project.IThe proposed project however, has a modern contemporary design with a variety of materials that ,' property in question is part of the Park would fit the design intent of North Main Street. It is common for high density multi -family projects to have Santiago Neighborhood Association. It is not a different architectural style than surrounding single-family dwellin s � s the architectural styles of a part of any olstrict center. single-family homes often do not translate well to multi -storied buildings______________________ Commented[DH57]: our point exactly. This could be one of the reasons the property is designated PAO. 7SE-14 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 15 Historic Neighborhood The City of Santa Ana has two National Register Districts, Downtown Santa Ana and French Park. park Santiago is nota registered historic district. b total of 32 historic homes have been documented in Park ---- ---- -- --------------- Santiago of the approximately 1,173 homes in the neighborhood with the majority of the homes being more than 50 years old. As part of the EIR (Section 4.4), Cogstone prepared a Historic Resources Report and concluded that the historic homes in Park Santiago will not have the setting and feeling aspects of integrity reduced by construction of the proposed project and thus there is no reduction in the historic significance of the homes. Future opportunity for the neighborhood to become a historic district still remains and is a public benefit deal point in the Development Agreement. Project Access Vehicular access is proposed via a driveway on Main Street which would only allow for right -in and right -out turn movements as Main Street has a median that separates north -south street traffic. As proposed, to enter the site when traveling southbound on Main Street ksidents would have to make a U-turn at Edgewood Road, and to exit the development and travel southbound on Main Street residents would have make a right-hand turn (northbound on Main Street)�mcl make a U-turn at Walkie Way or Main Place Drive.1- The �raffic Impact Analysis brepared for the project analyzed the impacts of having Main Street as the sole and primary access point and found that operations would not exceed a threshold of significance (DEIR Access Option A). J, Use of Santiago Park �he applicant is proposing secondary access through Santiago Park which would utilize the existing traffic signal at Main Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive. �his would allow for all directional movements to and from the property and reduce the U-turn movements described above. This access option, is not a required element for the project, however it was studied as a secondary access option (DEIR Access Option B) in the Traffic Impact Analysis and found to have a less than significant impact. Various portions of the park were developed with Land &Water Conservation grant funding. As a result, a 11 6(f)(3) boundary map placed the entire park under federal protection to be preserved as outdoor recreational use. Any proposed changes to the park, such as the proposed vehicular access, will require review by the City's Parks & Recreation Department, the Office of Grants and Local Services and National Park Service and replacement of land with new park land of equal utility and value. The estimated square footage to improve the park for vehicular access is 10,000 square feet, in turn �he applicant is proposing to provide 10,000 square feet oftheir propertyto the Cityfor park purposes'At this time, the City has not been begun conversations with the Office of Grants and Local Services or the National Park Service, but the City would support use of the park as long as replacement parkland is provided and monetary funds are contributed to the City for Santiago Park Maintenance & Improvements. 75E-15 Commented [DH58]: Park Santiago is a Historical resource andit should be treated as such. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the term "histarirel resources" includes the following: 1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources(Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant In a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Cade, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. The EIR response to this is: 'This policy [Urban Design Element Policy 2.4 ] is not relevant to the proposed project. As is in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, Park Santiago is not identif t Commented [DH59]: The onty way [o access the property from the north is to makea U -tum. This is absurd. Commented [DH60]: Likewise, the only way to travel south is to make a U -tum at Walkie Way or Main Place Drive. Commented [DH61]: An example from the Traffic Analysis in regards of the access at the 22 Freeway: "With the addition of project troffc, the intersection would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS Fin the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, and the proposed project would not res z Commented [DH62]: This secondary access should be fully understood prior to making a determination as to the feasibility of Implementing it. It could drastically change the layout of the entire Northern area of the property. Commented [DH63]: The applicant should assume this would happen and plan accordingly. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 16 Traffic A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Translutions, Inc. forthe project. The studywas peer reviewed by the Cltys Public Works Agency and Kimley-Horn an on-call traffic engineering firm .The study evaluated 16 intersections, 10 roadway segments, 6 neighborhood intersections, 10 neighborhood roadway segments and 15 freeway segments (DEIR Section 4.1 1). Impacts were analyzed for the existing conditions (2018), expected project opening year ( 2020) and future conditions (2040). The 2020 conditions include the planned Caltrans improvement project which will add one continuous High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction along the northbound and southbound 1-5 freeway between SR -55 and SR -57, which would result in the removal of the 1-5 HOV northbound entrance and southbound exit ramps at the intersection of N. Main Street/Edgewood Road 1-5 ramps. Based on the Institute ofTraffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, the project is estimated to generate 2,698 daily trips. Table 8: Proposed Project Trip Generation AM Peak our PM Peak Hour 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Trip Generation 0.09 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.44 5.44 Rates Proposed Project 46 133 179 133 86 219 2,698 Trip Generation (496 units) Existing Office 81 13 94 15 79 94 791 (Alternative 1) _ Reduced Project 32 93 125 93 60 153 1,888 (Alternative 2) Office -Professional 387 62 449 71 375 446 3,774 zone (Alternative 3) The City of Santa Ana uses a rating criteria known as Level of Service (LOS) to assess the severity of traffic congestion at intersections and roadway segments. The LOS criteria uses an "A" to "F" rating scale; an "A" rating meaning traffic conditions have the least amount of traffic congestion (free flowing traffic) and an "F" rating meaning traffic conditions will have the most traffic congestion (forced or breakdown of traffic flow). As a standard practice, the City has adopted an operational LOS rating of D as the minimum acceptable LOS for intersections and roadway segments, except that for intersections and roadway segments that fall within major development areas, the City adopted a LOS rating of E as the minimum acceptable LOS. LOS is obtained by calculating the ratio of vehicles at an intersection or roadway segment versus the vehicle capacity of that intersection or roadway segment (Vehicles/Capacity). The City acknowledges that the proposed project would generate additional traffic and that would result in an increase in vehicle trips on area roadways (2,698 trips). However, the project and implementation of any 75E-16 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 17 of the three access options would not exceed a threshold identified by the City or Caltrans (Pages 4.11-12 to 4.11-23 of the DEIR). Parking The project proposes 904 parking spaces (1.8 parking spaces per unit). A parking study of two similar multi- family projects that identified a parking demand of 1.354 space per unit which would forecasts parking needs to be 672 spaces for the project less than the applicant's proposed 904. Table 9 illustrates the number of spaces requ fired by the City's multifamily parking standards (SAMC Section 41-1322). Table 9: barking Per SAMC Section 41-1322 Multi -family Dwellings commented [DH64]: The City has the $AMC for a reason. Unit Type Units Rate Required Spaces Total # of units 496 Ratio 496 Studios 73 1.00 73 .One Bedrooms 307 1.00 307 Two Bedrooms 88 2.00 176 Three Bedrooms 28 3.00 84 Subtotal 2.0 262 1,136 Guest Parkin 1,136 .25 284 Total 2.2 2.2 1,420spaces (2.86 spaces per unit) Table 30: Santa Ana Multi -Family Project Parking Supply & Ratio 7SE-17 Parking Parking Ratio Tandem Parkin Project Name Units Total Residential Guest Total Residential Number Percent The Marke 300 660 600 60 2.2 2.0 262 44% Nineteenol 254 559 559 2.2 2.2 — — prlsma Sol 182 364 328 36 2.0 1.8 234 71* Commented[DH65]: At this parking ratio (1.8) the owners of City Place needed to post signs in their parking lot to Inform the resident of Prisma of the following: "NO PARKING BY PRISMA RESIDENTS OR GUESTS ATANYTIME." These signs were put up prior W having 50%occupancy. This is what we can expect if we don't follow the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Elan 603 1,209 1,209 2.0 2.0 70 6% The Heritage 1,221 2,231 2,231 1.8 1.8 -- — T% The Madison 260 468 468 1.8 1.8 104 22 The Line 228 359 342 17 1.6 1.5 _ _ 2525 North Main St. squired by SAMC 496 1,420 1,136 I 284 ` Commented [DH66]: In addition to being drastically short of parking, it doesn't address staff Parking needs. 7SE-17 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 18 Votes: 3arking Ratio Total = Total Parking Spaces / Units iesidential Ratio = Residential Parking Spaces / Units lercent Tandem Stalls = Number of Tandem Stalls / Units The multi -family parking standards were last updated in 1997. Over the last 10 years, multi -family projects similar in character to the proposed project have been constructed and/or approved with parking ratios ranging from 1.6 to 2.20 parking space per unit. Therefore, staff is recommending that the parking capacity of the project be increased to 2.0 parking spaces per unit (with staff recommended changes to maximum density 476 units would equate to required capacity for a minimum of 952 spaces). These recommendations are supported by the applicant and included in the Development Agreement. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Santa Ana's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 405 units for the planning period of 2014 through 2021. RHNA progress is reported annually to the state and is tracked by the number of building permits issued at the time that the report is completed. From 2014 to 2017, building permits were issued for 916 dwelling units, approximately 59 percent of the overall target; 87 very low, 70 low and 30 moderate units remain to fulfill the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation. Residential development has continued and the 0018 report will be completed in March of 2019 - - -Commented IDH671: I believe this will show Santa Ana's Regional Housing Needs Table 11: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress 2014-2017 Allocation (RHNA) IS MET. Income RHNA New New New New Total Total Remaining Allocation Housing Units Housing Units Housing Housing Housing RHNA by Income 2014 2015 Units Units units by Levels Income 2037 Very Low 156 20 0 0 49 69 87 Low 122 20 0 12 20 52 70 Moderate 37 0 11 5 11 27 10 1 Above Moderate 90 241 127 285 115 768 0 ' Total: 405 281 138 302 195 916 167 ; Apartment Product Type i The applicant is proposing a high density multi -family housing project with no condominium map proposed 11 at this time. �hould an application to convert the project to condominiums be filed, the application would be processed in accordance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article IX, Common Interested ; Developments and Conversions Projects, Division 2, Residential Conversion Projects. Given that the ; proposed project is a market rate development, `ents are expected to range from $2,000 to $3,700 J consistent with similar development in the City such as The Marke, The Nineteen0l and Prisma. �he community has expressed preference for the property to remain as a professional office building; however, if residential development were to occur the community would prefer detached single-family dwellings or townhomes. 75E-18 Commented [DH68]: History dictates this entitlement will be sold before a shovel hits the ground. The new owner will be back before the city council looking to make adjustments. See the number of times Legado at the Met and The Heritage have changed hands and adjustments have been requested. Commented [DH69]: With 38 Boor plans, these are the starting prices. To avoid being rent poor (more than 30 percent of income is used on rent) An occupant would need to earn a minimum of $80K to rent a studio and $152K to rent the smallest 3 -bedroom to avoid being rent poor. Commented IDH7a]: Single-family dwellings orlow- demity townhomes. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 19 No General Plan Amendment, No Zone Change - Spot Zoning Comments have been received thatthe land use designation should remain Professional and Administrative Office and zoning as Professional. Comments have also been received in regards to "spot zoning" which is generally referred to when zoning standards are changed for one property and provides for use of the property that is different than surrounding area. Case law has established that there are several things to consider regarding the property size, surroundings, and public benefits. The property isa large 5.93 -acre parcel that could be developed as one large property or subdivided into several properties. Although, the ; subject site does not share a property line with another District Center due to geographic features such as Santiago Creek and the 1-5 freeway, there are District Center properties to the north and south of the site along Main Street. In addition, several nearby properties are Specific Developments, therefore amending the zoning of the property to Specific Development No. 93 would not be an unusual circumstance. furthermore, approximately 25 percent of the properties along Main Street north of the 1-5 freeway will be a District Center with Specific Development plan.L i �nvisloning Mapl ; Early in the General Plan update process (late 2015/early2016) Planning Division staff drafted an envisioning ' map which identified study areas and areas that could potentially have an increase in development, density ; and building heights. The North Main Street corridor (north of 17th Street) including the subject property was identified as an area that may be considered for high-rise development and unlimited density. The map did not go through a formal adoption process and included a note that "The map represents a conceptual effort and its contents are in a draft format and do not represent any formal efforts to rezone or redesignate properties shown." �s mentioned previously, the North Main Street area is still being analyzed as part of the comprehensive General Plan update. i Cumulative Impacts i `as part of the EIR a list of cumulative projects was drafted including projects in the vicinity within the City of Santa Ana and City of Orange for which development applications were submitted, approved and/or under construction at or prior to the release of the NOP. �he project list includes 39 commercial and _ residential projects. Key topics raised or commented on relative to the cumulative impacts were population and traffic among others that are analyzed in the EIR. �he Persons Per Household Evaluation within the EIR determined that the number of persons per dwelling unit is anticipated to be 1.6 per studio, 1.6 per one -bedroom, 2.7 per two-bedroom and 3.9 per three- bedroom which with the applicant's proposed project would be 955 residents. �n addition, 1 ,236 multi- family units are proposed within the City of Santa Ana and 3,3244 ultifamily units within the Cityof Orange_ (5,056 units total). The total cumulative housing growth from all of the projects listed equals 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG's growth estimates of 8.4 percent increase. 75E-19 Commented [DH71]: From the General Plan Land Use Element: The Museum District located between the Downtown and Main Place/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowen Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers. Commented [DH72]: Still can't believe this Is even being mentioned. The Envision Map is not an approved City document. A parcel of land that is located across the street from 2525, and is less than 8000 square feet, is also listed as a site for "Highrise (unlimited density)". Commented [DH73]: This is a fair warning to anyone wishing to use this map. Commented [DH74]: What Is missing is the Main Place Transformation Project. The City has restricted the scope of the r2525 EIR to development applications that were submitted, approved and/or under construction at or prior to the release of the NOP. CEQA 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS requires either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or A summary of Projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. The Main Place EIR was approved in the 1990's and is a known project. The fact f3l Commented [DH75]: From the Magnolia At The Park Website: There will be: • a maximum of 2 residents allowed In studios and one -bedroom units, • a maximum of 4 residents in two bedroom units, and • a maximum of 5 residents in three bedroom units. q Commented [DH76]: Over 1500 of these units are slated for the areas south of the SR - 22 and North of 1-5 (within 0.5 miles of 2525 N. Main St.) BEFORE you even count the 496 units for this project and BEFORE the 1900 units at Main Place are considered. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 20 In 2020, the project and cumulative projects are anticipated to generate 4,306 a.m. peak hour trips, 4,359 p.m. peak hour trips, and 49,842 daily trips. In 2020, with the cumulative project trips, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service, except for the Main Street/Santa Clara/1-5 northbound on ramp and the SR -22 eastbound ramps at Town and Country Road in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, the SR -22 eastbound ramps at Town and Country Road also operate at unsatisfactory conditions under existing conditions. �n 2040, the intersections are anticipated to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service with or without the project. Impacts to Public Services Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the project on fire service, police service and parks and recreation service. CEQA focuses on the physical effects of the project (i.e. new or expanded facilities), therefore an increase in staffing or calls for service would not, by itself, be considered a physical change in the environment. As proposed the project would result in a less than significant impact to public services. Impacts to Utilities Sections 4.13 and 4.14 of the Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the project on water supply, wastewater, drainage, water quality, and energy. Technical reports including a Water Supply Assessment, Sewer Analysis and Hydrology Report were prepared for the project. As proposed the project would result in a less than significant impact to utilities and services. Noise Section 4.8 ofthe Draft EIR analyzed noise impacts related to construction operations and operational noise from HVAC equipment, parking facilities, trash removal and use of the outdoor open space. Based on the SAMC noise standards the project would not general noise levels that would exceed noise standards. To mitigate construction noise two mitigation measures are proposed, one to require a 50 -foot buffer along the east property line for large mobile construction equipment and installation of a temporary noise barrier such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets attached to the east property line wall or temporary fence posts. Privacy Privacy concerns regarding windows on the east elevation and visibility from the rooftop amenity deck into backyards or homes were raised. A rendering of eastern views from the rooftop has been provided, views of the single-family dwellings are out of the line of sight from the amenity deck as it is located closer to Main Street. In addition, staff has included a requirement within the Specific Development for clerestory or opaque windows along the building wall that is at the 40 foot setback. 75E-20 Commented [DH77]: Its already unsatisfactory so we shouldn't worry about it. What is not mentioned is the EIR also states that for the 15 surrounding freeway intersections during the peak times (a.m. and p.m.) the CURRENT grade for these 22 of the 30 data points is a failing grade. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 21 Changes Commented [DH781: We do NO7 want the ----------------------------------------------------- property rezoned to SD. Since the initial project submittal, the applicant has made changes to the project to address both staffs and the public's comments. Changes made include: educed the number of units from 517 to 476 (Reduction of 41 units -8%). - - - Commented[DH791: Reduce number of 2. Removed access on Edgewood Road to reduce the potential for cut -through traffic into the Park units to 20 DDA. Santiago neighborhood. ®Reduced the height of the building along the east side from 5 -stories (78 feet) to 2 -stories (25 feet),I _- _ - Commented [DH801: Maintain cunt 4. Revised the architectural style. height restrictions of PAO zoning.. Staff is recommending additional modifications to the project based on previously constructed and approved multi -family development projects in the City, planning and design principles, the character of the nearby residential neighborhood, and the community's concerns. The proposed changes include: 1. Number of units: Further reduce units from 496 to 476 units (81 dwelling units per acre). 2. Unit Mix: Increase number of family units from 20 percent to 30 percent (two- and three-bedroom units). 3. Parking Management: Increase number of spaces or capacity to increase the onsite ratio of onsite parking to an equivalent of 2.00 spaces per unit. Further, a parking management plan shall be submitted that maintains this ratio prior to Certificate of Occupancy and throughout the life of the project. Provisions to meet this standard may include an onsite valet parking service. 4. Design: Incorporate two courtyards into the portion of the project that is located along the north property line adjacent to Santiago Park. The staff recommended changes to the development discussed above will be codified in the Specific Development as follows: 75E-21 EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 22 Table 12: Specific Development - Development Standards Development Standard Specific Development Section Number of Units section 3 a Unit Mix Section 3 b Parking section SO Design (North Building Elevation) section 12(b)(3) Conclusion Staff supports the conversion of the existing vacant office buildings to residential. If approved, the project will provide additional housing in a prime location that is accessible to retail and employment opportunities with multimodal transportation options. The project provides general fund revenue as well as community benefits for the neighborhood and Santiago Park. The project will also enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability through the increase in property tax values k well as -an -Increase in sales tax generated fromCommented [DH81]: This has already the residents. happeded Planning Commission recommended denial due. the increase in traffic resulting from the project, t. ,- commented [DH82]: All valid reasons. massing and density of the project, the project's incompatibility with the surrounding community, poten adverse effects of the project on the adjacent Park Santiago neighborhood, the lack of community Supp forthe development, potential longterm impacts associated with the proposed development, and concerns )vith potential parking intrusion on the adjacent neighborhood. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #3 - Economic Development, Objective 82 (create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies). FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project would convert an office development into a residential development. Afiscal and economic impact analysis was prepared by RSG, Inc. in 2017 analyzing the 517 -unit project (Exhibit 10). In brief, RSG anticipates the followingfiscal outcomes over a 25 -year forecast period: approximately $33.5 million in revenue over 25 years ($19 million in 2017$) to the City's General Fund (constructionperiod revenues, recurring property tax revenue, utility usertax, residential: sales tax and business tax). Finance staff concurs with the estimates in the RSG analysis ®Approximately $10.0 million over 25 years ($5.4 million in 2017$) in expenditures from the City General Fund (public services) which primarily include a per -capita amount for only the variable costs of police and fire (only half of those budgets), as well as.$2 per person for parks and recreation. The analysis did not include the impact of the additional wear and tear on the City's infrastructure, such as the increased use of the right of waY 75E-22 Commented fDH83]: Income.is based ort 517 units. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 23 APPROVEDASTOFUNDSANDACCOUNTS: Thai ��h_'L_+rYta — Minty ihai Kathryn Oav s, —CP Executive Director Executive Director Planning and Building Agency Finance and Management Services Agency Exhibits: 1. City Council Resolution Denying the Project. 2. City Council Resolution adopting the CEQA Findings or Fact, certifying the Final EIR and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Repoding Program, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations & Exhibits 3. Ordinance approving the Development Agreement & Exhibit (Development Agreement) 4. Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment & Exhibits (General Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendments) S. Ordinance Approving the Amendment Application & Exhibits (Zoning Map and Text Amendments) 6. Sunshine Meeting Minutes & Sign In 7. Response to Lozeau Drury LLP 11-26-18 Letter 6, Planning Commission Staff Report 9. Project Parking Analysis 10. Project Economic Analysis 11. Vicinity Map 12. Site Photos 13. Site Plan 14, Floor Plans 15, Building Elevations 16. Renderings 17, Landscape Plan 18, City Council Public Hearing Notice 7sE-23 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 24 ERRORS IN THE REVIEW OF THE EIR. The Planning Department has admitted an error was made in the evaluation of a comment made by a resident. They now realize the location of the emergency access drive approach as proposed will potentially impact 3 out of 11 of the existing 100 -foot palm trees within the public right-of-way on Edgewood. Most of the remaining 100 -foot palm trees are in jeopardy as well. It is unacceptable that this issue was ignored. The street needs to be widened but the EIR does not address this fact. There are other errors in the EIR that they have overlooked as well. Page 15; [1] Commented [DHS8j Dale Helvig 1/7/7 9 3:0'4:00 PM Park Santiago is a Historical resource and it should be treated as such. Under CELLA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the term "historical resources" includes the following: 1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. The EIR response to this is: "This policy [Urban Design Element Policy 2.4 j is not relevant to the proposed project. As described in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, Park Santiago is not identified by the General Plan or other City designation as a historic district." However, the General Plan Urban Design Element [page 11] identifies Park Santiago and Riverview West as examples of similar design districts. The General Plan Housing Element [page 56] goes on to talk about Historic Neighborhood Preservation. It states "Santa Ana has residential, commercial, and industrial areas that have cultural or historic significance to the community. Residential neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, French Park, Floral Park, Wilshire Square, Eastside, Washington Square, and Heninger Park residential neighborhoods. The City is also known for its historic Mexican barrios, including the Logan, Lacy, Delhi, and Santa Anita neighborhoods, which date to the late 1880s. Several of these are recognized as historical districts, while others are not. In addition to preservation strategies for individual structures, the City could explore strategies to identify and preserve neighborhoods or elements thereof that are locally considered worthy of preservation efforts, but not necessarily individually eligible for a formal state at, national historic designation." Page IS: [2) Commented [DH61 j Dale Helvig 1/7/20'19 3.54:00 PM An example from the Traffic Analysis in regards of the access at the 22 Freeway: "With the addition of project traffic, the intersection would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, and the proposed project would not result in exceedance of the Caltrans criteria, and no impacts at other intersections would occur. Thus, impacts to intersections in the existing plus project with Option A would be less than significant. It's bad, it will stay bad, so it's OK. Amazingl EIR response: "Because the project would result in limited peak hour trips, it would not result in a change to the existing MOE [Measure of Effectiveness]". Page 19: [3] Commented[DH74] Dale Helvig 1/8/201911k AM What is missing is the Main Place Transformation Project. The City has restricted the scope of the r2525 EIR to development applications that were submitted, approved and/or under construction at or prior to the release of the NOP. CEQA 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS requires either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. The Main Place EIR was approved in the 1990's and is a known project. The fact that the new owner submitted a plan in May 2018 is irrelevant. The Main Place EIR did not evaluate the 2525 N. Main Residential Development. And the 2525 N. Main Residential Development EIR did not evaluate the Main Place. How is this looking at cumulative effects? Page T9: Ed] Commented [RH75] Dole Helvig 1/8/2019 10:30:00 AM From the Magnolia At The Park Website: There will be: • a maximum of 2 residents allowed in studios and one -bedroom units, • a maximum of 4 residents in two bedroom units, and • a maximum of 5 residents in three bedroom units. "Magnolia will control occupancy through an on site management team and a comprehensive lease agreement." At a total of 496 Units this means: 73 studios 146 residents 307 one -bedroom units 614 residents 88 two-bedroom units 352 residents 28 three-bedroom units 140 residents Total of 1252 residents. 11 ■ i�� 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 20 Table 11: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress 2014-2017 Income RHNA New New New New Total Total Remaining Allocation Housing Units Housing Units Housing Housing Housing RHNA by Income 2014 2015 Units Units units by Levels Income 2017 Very Low 156 20 0 0 49 69 87 Low 122 20 0 12 20 52 70 Moderate 37 0 11 5 11 27 10 Above 90 241 127 285 115 768 0 Moderate Total: 1 405 281 138 302 195 1 916 167 Apartment Product Type The applicant is proposing a high density multi -family housing project with no condominium map proposed at this time. �hould an application to convert the project to condominiums be filed, the _- application would be processed in accordance with Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 34, Article IX, Common Interested Developments and Conversions Projects, Division 2, Residential Conversion Projects. Given that the proposed project is a market rate development, (rents are expected to range from $2,000 to $3,700 consistent with similar development in the City such as The Marke, The Nineteen0l and Prisma. �fhe community has expressed preference for the property to remain as a professional office building; however, If residential development were to occur the community would prefer detached single-family dwellings ortownhomes.l No General Plan Amendment, No Zone Change - Spot Zoning , Comments have been received that the land use designation should remain Professional and Administrative Office and zoning as Professional. Comments have also been received in regards to "spot zoning" which is generally referred to when zoning standards are changed for one property and provides for use of the property that is different than surrounding area. Case law has established that there are several things to consider regarding the property size, surroundings, and public benefits. The property is a large 5.93 -acre parcel that could be developed as one large property or subdivided into several properties. Although, the subject site does not share a property line with another District Center due to geographic features such as Santiago Creek and the 1-5 freeway, there are District Center properties to the north and south of the site along Main Street. In addition, several nearby properties are Specific Developments, therefore amending the zoning of the property to Specific Development No. 93 would not be an unusual circumstance. furthermore, approximately 25 percent of the properties along Main Street north of the 1-5 freeway will be a District Center with Specific Development plan,[ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Commented [DH66j: History dictates this entitlement will be sold before a shave] hits the ground. The new owner will be back before the city council looking to make adjustments. See the number of times legado at the Met and The Heritage have changed hands and adjustments have been Commented [DH671: With 38 floor plans, these are the starting prices. To avoid being rent poor (more than 30 percent of income is used on rent) An occupant would need to earn a minimum of $801K to rent studio and $152K to rent the smallest 3 -bedroom to avoid being rent Commented [DH68j: Single-family Commented [DH691: From the General Plan Land Use Element: The Museum District located between the Downtown and Main Place/City Place District Centers Is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowers Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers, 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 21 �nvislorl ng (vtap� _ — Commented [A1,1701; Stili can't believe this is even being mentioned. The Envision Map Early in the General Plan update process (late 2015/early 2016) Planning Division staff drafted an is not an approved City document. Aparcel of land that is lasted across the streetfrom envisioning map which identified study areas and areas that could potentially have an increase in 2525, and Islessthana009squarefeet,is development, density and building heights. The North Main Street corridor (north of 17th Street) alsoiistedasa sitefor"Highrise (unlimited including the subject property was identified as an area that may be considered for high-rise density)":. development and unlimited density. The map did not go through a formal adoption process and included a note that] "The map represents a conceptual effort and its contents are in a draft format and do not represent any formal efforts to rezone or redesignate properties shown." �s mentioned previously, the North Main Street area is still being analyzed as part of the comprehensive General Plan update. Cumulative Impacts As part of the EIR a listof cumulative projectswas drafted Including projects in the vicinity within the City of Santa Ana and City of Orange for which development applications were submitted, approved and/or under construction at orprjortothe release ofthe NOP. �heprojectlistincludes 39 commercial and residential projects. Key topics raised or commented on relative to the cumulative impacts were population and traffic among others that are analyzed in the EIR. The Persons Per Household Evaluation within the EIR determined thatthe number of persons per dwelling unit is anticipated to be 1,4 per studio, LIS per one -bedroom, 2,7 per two-bedroom and 3.9 per three-bedroom which with the applicant's proposed project would be 955 residents. [in _ adclltlon� 1,236 multi -family units are proposedwithin the City of Santa Ana and 3,3246ultifamilY units within the City of Orange (5,056 units total). The total cumulative housing growth from all of the projects listed equals 7.4 percent, which is consistent with SCAG's growth estimates of 8.4 percent increase. , In 2020, the project and cumulative projects are anticipated to generate 4,306 a.m. peak hour trips, 4,359 p.m. peak hourtrips, and 49,842 dailytrips. In 2020, with the cumulative project trips, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service, except for the Main Street/Santa Clara/1-5 northbound on ramp and the SR -22 eastbound ramps at Town and ' Country Road in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. �Ipwever, the SR -22 eastbound ramps at Town and Country Road also operate at unsatisfactory conditions under existing conditions. In ' 2040, the intersections are anticipated to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service with or without the project. , Impacts to Public Services Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the project on fire service, police service and parks and recreation service. CECIA focuses on the physical effects of the project (i.e. new or expanded facilities), therefore an increase in staffing or calls for service would not, by itself, be considered a physical change in the environment. As proposed the project would result in a less than significant impact to public services. Commented [DH71 ]:This is a fair warning to anyone wishing to use this map, Commented C4472j: Whatls misa]ngisthe ' Maln Place Transformation Project. The City has restricted the scope of the r2525 EIR to development applications that were submitted, approved and/or under construction at or prier to the release of the NOP. CEQA 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS requires elther a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing relatedor cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the tontrol Of the agency, orA summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative affect. The Main Place EIR was approved in the 1990's and is known project. The fact that the new owner submitted a plan InMay 2018 IS irrelevant. The Main Place ElR did not evaluate the 2525 W Main Residential Development. And the 2525N. Main Residential Development EIR did not F 3] Commented CH73D From the Magnolia At The Park Website; Them will be: s a maximum oft residents allowed in studios andone-bedroom units, + a maximum of 4 residents In two bedroom units, and • a maximum of 5 residents in three bedroom units. [41 Commented (DH741: Over 1500 of these units are slated for the areas south of the SR - 22 and North of 65 iwithin 0.5 miles of 2525 N, Main St.) BEFORE you even count the 496 units for this project and BEFORE the 1900 units at Main Place are considered, Commented iDH751: Its already unsatisfactory so we shouldn't worry about it. What is not mentioned is the EIR also states that for the 15 surrounding freeway intersections during the peak times (a, m, and p.m.) the CURRENT gradefor these 22 of the 30 data points is a failing grade. �._ ntl Nll i," 1/ II__ I.. .aa v W iLI ns nm _ ��✓�-�.•^ ntl ONtla`J/ ntlnNtltlO O 161135stl1'J V 'N s ry O s F �J - • 15 ItlW i -AVMntlOaa— �is IVW t q L_. Q I. •-' ® ®A AVMTVO56 �y AVMUVOa6�_ E 4 16 a3M - � �J o lS a3MOld � y€�.� 19 Y3MOld �--�•-'•• Till Is Iva is 4_L 161 101Sltl9 ¢ — — — I� "a `�. Svc lsnlslnaltli � i A E� rc rc ome aoaavu �^ -"' ame-ebeavN-""-"'— i a is adoNnnaN ��� ! W 0 « Y 70 113n3 Ear ' G N �6 j(n o � E ry D D ® N N 7 N A o N o o .o Y p N N O] L Ta F U -p (7 U N O 7 N N w W O O C� N k N 'C OUZ, RN' Gi O O O Y O G O �ii y o v m O J c m a N CL coO L°n o d U C ~ W 2 z Z O ❑ � Jj O U 2>> w o Z O U i ® [JH to 1 m �._ ntl Nll i," 1/ II__ I.. .aa v W iLI ns nm _ ��✓�-�.•^ ntl ONtla`J/ ntlnNtltlO O 161135stl1'J V 'N s ry O s F �J - • 15 ItlW i -AVMntlOaa— �is IVW t q L_. Q I. •-' ® ®A AVMTVO56 �y AVMUVOa6�_ E 4 16 a3M - � �J o lS a3MOld � y€�.� 19 Y3MOld �--�•-'•• Till Is Iva is 4_L 161 101Sltl9 ¢ — — — I� "a `�. Svc lsnlslnaltli � i A E� rc rc ome aoaavu �^ -"' ame-ebeavN-""-"'— i a is adoNnnaN ��� ! W 0 « Y 70 113n3 Ear ' G EXCERPT FROM ENVISION MAP FLORAL PAR SANTIAGO Documenkl Page 1 of 1 2018-01-25 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 22 Impacts to Utilities Sections 4.13 and 4.14 of the Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of the project on water supply, wastewater, drainage, water quality, and energy. Technical reports including a Water Supply Assessment, Sewer Analysis and Hydrology Report were prepared for the project. As proposed the project would result in a less than significant impact to utilities and services. Noise Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR analyzed noise impacts related to construction operations and operational noise from HVAC equipment, parking facilities, trash removal and use of the outdoor open space. Based on the SAMC noise standards the project would not general noise levels that would exceed noise standards. To mitigate construction noise two mitigation measures are proposed, one to require a 50 -foot buffer along the east property line for large mobile construction equipment and installation of a temporary noise barrier such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets attached to the east property line wall or temporary fence posts. Privacy Privacy concerns regarding windows on the east elevation and visibility from the rooftop amenity deck into backyards or homes were raised. A rendering of eastern views from the rooftop has been provided, views of the single-family dwellings are out of the line of sight from the amenity deck as it is located closer to Main Street. In addition, staff has included a requirement within the Specific Development for clerestory or opaque windows along the building wall that is at the 40 foot setback. Staff Recommended Changes) Commented tDH761: We do NOT went the property rexonetl to SD. Since the initial project submittal, the applicant has made changes to the project to address both staff's and the public's comments. Changes made include: - Reduced the number of units from 517 to 476 (Reduction of 41 units -8%)' _ - _- Commented [DH77]: seduce number of 2. Removed access on Edgewood Road to reduce the potential for cut -through traffic into units to 20 DUA. the Park Santiago neighborhood. E Reduced the height of the building alongthe east side from 5 -stories (78 feet)to 2 -stories (25 feet)•I _ _ _ - -- Commented [DH78]: Maintain current 4. Revised the architectural style. height restrictions of RAO zoning. — -- 5. Increased the number of family units from 20 percent of the project to 30 percent. Increased the effective parking ratio from 1,76 to 2.0 per unit through the use of valet. ___-_ commented [DH79]: Apply the SAMc requirements. 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 23 Staff is recommending additional modifications to the project based on previously constructed and approved multi -family development projects in the City, planning and design principles, the character of the nearby residential neighborhood, and the community's concerns. The proposed changes include: 1. Number of units: Reduce units to a maximum of 476 units (81 dwelling units per acre). 2. Unit Mix: Increase number of family units to 30 percent (two- and three-bedroom units). 3. Parking Management: Increase number of spaces or capacity to increase the onsite ratio of onsite parking to an equivalent of 2.00 spaces per unit. Further, a parking management plan shall be submitted that maintains this ratio prior to Certificate of Occupancy and throughout the life of the project. Provisions to meet this standard may include an onsite valet parking service. 4. Design: Incorporatetwo courtyards intothe portion of the projectthat is located alongthe north property line adjacent to Santiago Park. The staff recommended changes to the development discussed above will be codified in the Specific Development as follows: Table 12: Specific Development - Development Standards Development Standard Specific Development Section Number of Units Section 3 a Unit Mix Section 3 b Parking Section 10 Design (North Building Elevation) Section 12 (b)(3) Economic Analysis The proposed project would convert an office development into a residential development. A fiscal and economic impact analysis was prepared by RSG, Inc. in 2017 analyzing the 517 -unit project (Exhibit 8). In brief, RSG anticipates the following fiscal outcomes over a 25 -year forecast period: pproximately $33.5 million in revenue to the City's General Fund (construction period revenues, recurring property tax revenue, utility user tax, residential sales tax and business tax) pproximately $10.0 million in expenditures from the City General Fund (public services) The net new General Fund revenue is projected to be approximately $23.5 million from the acquisition and development of the Project Commented [pRBpi; The fiscal impact Analysis in Exhibit is an analysis prepared by The Concord Group (8911 was retained by The Concord Group) The financial number are not accurately represented. you should look at Exhibit$ for the full story. 'rhe net income in 2017$ is $1359 million, not $23.5 million. Income is based on 517 units. 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 24 Table 13: Public Notification I Public Notification & Community Outreach Required Measures I A Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting was held on November 15, 2017 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. � total of 263 people signed in,1_- A public notice will be posted on the project site on January 4, 2019. Notification by mail will be mailed on January 4, 2019 to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site and notification will be provided to all interested parties that have requested to receive a notice with contact information on file with the City Newspaper posting will be published in the Orange County Register on Januar, 4. 2019. Conclusion Staff is supportive of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-01 and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 for the site as redevelopment of the site with a residential development will provide additional housing in a prime location that is accessible to retail and employment opportunities with multimodal transportation options and the project provide general fund revenue. In addition, public benefits of the Development Agreement include: public art, monetary contribution to the Santiago Park Maintenance & Improvement Fund, access to on-site amenities for Park Santiago residents, security patrol of the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park, and monetary contribution to Park Santiago Neighborhood Improvements and Traffic Calming and Parking, for improvements such as street calming, traffic diversion, entry monuments, �ndstreet light retrofits[. The project will also -e - nhance the City's economic and fiscal viability through the _-- increase in property tax values as well as an increase in sales tax an from the residents. strategic Plan Alignment Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal No. 3 Economic Development, Objective No. 2 (create new opportunities for business/job growth and encourage private development through new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies). S0166 Kelah6r. AICP Associate Planner SK/VF:sb APlanning Commisslon/2010/1-14-19 Vince Fregoso�AICP Principal Plan}tor Commented [DH81 ]: Not everyone signed In since the doom were opened late and only 2 tables were used to get everyone signeddn. Over 450 people attended. Commented [DH82j: SCleet Tight retrofit has already been completed by the City, Commented [DH83j: Its in conflict with: General Plan Land Use Element: • Goal 3 Preserve and improve the character and integrity of neighborhoods. • Goal Protect and enhance development sites and districts which are unique community assets that enhance the quality of life. 09In general, • Increase employment opportunities for local residents. OR ..Maintain and enhance the diversity of the 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 25 Exhibits: 1. EIR Resolution, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, MMRP & EIR Link 2. Development Agreement Resolution & Agreement 3. General Plan Amendment Resolution & Exhibits 4. Amendment Application Resolution & Exhibits 5. Sunshine Meeting Minutes & Sign -in 6. Response to Lozeau Drury LLP 11-26-18 Letter 7. Parking Analysis 8. Economic Analysis 9. Vicinity Map 10. Site Photos 11. Overall Site Plan 12. Floor Plans 13. Building Elevations 14, Renderings 15, Landscape Plan 2525 North Main Street January 14, 2019 Page 26 ERRORS IN THE REVIEW OF THE EIR. The Planning Department has admitted an error was made in the evaluation of a comment made by a resident. They now realize the location of the emergency access drive approach as proposed will potentially impact 3 out of 11 of the existing 100 -foot palm trees within the public right-of-way on Edgewood. Most of the remaining 100 -foot palm trees are in jeopardy as well. It is unacceptable that this issue was ignored. The street needs to be widened but the EIR does not address this fact. There are other errors in the EIR that they have overlooked as well. Page 16: [1] Commented [DH56] Dale Heiv!g 1/7/2019 3:04:00 PM� Park Santiago is a Historical resource and it should be treated as such. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the term "historical resources" includes the following: 1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(8) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. The EIR response to this is: "This policy (Urban Design Element Policy 2.4 ) is not relevant to the proposed project. As described in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic Resources, Park Santiago is not identified by the General Plan or other City designation as a historic district.' However, the General Plan Urban Design Element [page 11] identifies Park Santiago and Riverview West as examples of similar design districts. The General Plan Housing Element [page 56] goes on to talk about Historic Neighborhood Preservation, It states "Santa Ana has residential, commercial, and industrial areas that have cultural or historic significance to the community. Residential neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, French Park, Floral Park, Wilshire Square, Eastside, Washington Square, and Heninger Park residential neighborhoods. The City is also known for its historic Mexican barrios, including the Logan, Lacy, Delhi, and Santa Anita neighborhoods, which date to the late 1880s. Several of these are recognized as historical districts, while others are not. In addition to preservation strategies for individual structures, the City could explore strategies to identify and preserve neighborhoods or elements thereof that are locally considered worthy of preservation efforts, but not necessarily individually eligible for a formal state or national historic designation." Page 16:121 Commented (DH59] Dale Helv]g 1(7/20195:54:00 PM An example from the Traffic Analysis in regards of the access at the 22 Freeway: "With the addition of project traffic, the intersection would continue to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, and the proposed project would not result in exceedance of the Caltrans criteria, and no impacts at other intersections would occur. Thus, impacts to intersections in the existing plus project with Option A mould he less than significant. It's bad, it will stay bad, so it's OK. Amazing! EIR response: `Because the project would result in limited peak hour trips, it would not result in a change to the existing MOE [Measure of Effectiveness]". Page 21: [3] Commented [DH72] Dale Helvig 1/8/3019 10:02:D0 AM What is missing is the Main Place Transformation Project. The City has restricted the scope of the r2525 EIR to development applications that were submitted, approved and/or under construction at or prior to the release of the NOP. CEQA 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS requires either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. The Main Place EIR was approved in the 1990's and is a known project. The fact that the new owner submitted a plan in May 2018 is irrelevant. The Main Place EIR did not evaluate the 2525 N. Main Residential Development. And the 2525 N. Main Residential Development EIR did not evaluate the Main Place. How is this looking at cumulative effects? Page 21: [4] Commented [DH73] Dale Helvig 9/8/2079 10:30:00 AM] From the Magnolia At The Park Website: There will be: • a maximum of 2 residents allowed in studios and one -bedroom units, • a maximum of 4 residents in two bedroom units, and • a maximum of 5 residents in three bedroom units. "Magnolia will control occupancy through an on site management team and a comprehensive lease agreement." At a total of 496 Units this means: 73 studios 146 residents 307 one -bedroom units 614 residents 88 two-bedroom units 352 residents 28 three-bedroom units 140 residents Total of 1252 residents. Dale Helvig Tuesday, November 13, 2018 Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning Planning and Building Agency e M-20 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: 2525 N. Main Residential Development Sunshine Meeting Rebuttal The applicant, AC 2525 Main LLC, submitted to the city a Sunshine Ordinance Community Meeting Report. NSAPA finds the report lacking in facts and it does not represent the meeting that was held on November 15, 2017. The rebuttal was written in February 2018, after the applicant finally submitted their version. A far cry from the requirement to provide timely and detailed minutes of the meeting including a written record of the comments provided by the community members. I would like to offer my viewpoint on how the meeting was conducted. In addition, please include this with the package be given to the Planning Commission. Prior to responding line -by-line I would like to list a few glaring oversites on their part. 1. The meeting was attended by 400-500 concerned residents. The applicant, AC 2525 Main LLC, had sign -in sheets and should be able to provide an accurate count on attendees. The shear number of people attending is indicative of the community concerns regarding this project and it should be included in the report. 2. The notes do not address a straw poll that was held at the meeting where attendees were asked if they wanted apartments built at 2525 N. Main St. The verbal response was overwhelming, 99% voted nay with only 4-5 people voting yea. 3. The report makes no reference to the raw negative emotion exhibited by an overwhelming majority of the residents in attendance. 4. The applicant made a mockery of the Sunshine Ordinance. 5. The applicant did very little preparation and coordination work for the Sunshine meeting. Sunshine Meeting Report - Neighborhood Rebuttal -Table View Page 1 of 2 2018-11-13 Dale Helvig 6. The applicant believed the project would take 1.5 years to entitle. 7. The project is under -parked. S. The applicant said the City would gain 30.6 million in taxes, over a 25 years. Avoids mentioning the revenue that could be generated by a 200-300k square foot office building. Respectfully, ak 4 It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) cc: Raul Godinez II Santa Ana City Manager Candida Neal, Planning Manager Vince Fregoso, Principle Planner Selena I<elaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chairman, Planning Commission Phil Schaefer, Vice Chair, Historic Resources Commission Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary Michael O'Valle, President, Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNA) Sunshine Meeting Report - Neighborhood Rebuttal -Table View Page 2 of 2 2018-11-13 T A }�y NO F, 4^ Y a� O. O 9 GJ O C rn a) C LA N Ln N Y � u � Y -O O O u - - DJ Ln•3 v c Q N to *' Y � c ,o - ca u O D Q c O O +L+ vii � N v 0 CU M O 3 D, CU L m S c CU N > c G M . > w N O N u CL OM O o- Cl In c c N a bD cc E '-0 d Q1 N O a) Y S cuC U 8 O �Y ,u ® D N v L a t Y r- 0 3 c O O Y O Q v N u v m N v Q L M N N � L 3 a 3 EQ� 16 c y 0 Y J y Ln v � c cu `> O Q c ru N n OC N A_- o_E Y L > E G O C N U +O D1 ' T CY C bD E (v c :3 ' CL E U Q C O N a • _T 'O Q :N r O O c C C 'O `I o p !P a 3 c U � m m p a a I> v o f vl a w r o c 0 o'u '3 u w [ m m Ln s- in Y a al N ,� M 7 C Y N N Ul i_ O LMLI N C> jP a N W C 0 E 9 m O E Oy R2' N C a Oj c. 49 w ° �a N° 3 v p v C) o m� m n E 'l+N •• -a N f_ C O a C a a ON •N C Ij O L1 C IN X O it f F> .0 Z 0 4 y u u u l'] lu CL C a Z >a, N O N Ou V N N v N w O W 0 0 O° Ul it.. a 0 p ua«vv«c°�3m"�N O o��oc��oa c o a °c s r N Ln S, o c z s cm v of p ui z a 3 °J cam• a c `O o o° o c .a o m ° v v a o n E o W w `o W v w C c0 N H p O yj W >> pl O o a O a Ly � a u Z o O T t � N C L � m Z 0 O U H N N a V 4- O oo v s N c o f o F E E o v w m m .� i o U v p o v o m n °' i'o �� O -aol c o C •p V p W ,O m N Y- ro V C L1 W -O UI � O d 9 V N U N UI C v C C t OQ2 Ul p v3- p T E iC N N N '� C= in E' ' J 4 'L' iv .p x O E -c C 9 o. 'w °c 1: C7 ¢ N - c � -� c c v o N E 4 m -tl1c 'p' O m E m u 1 E .n c '� w '� E .yam--' v '3 'N a`� i' C .� R N w 0 :t' c ai E y w v t0 a s E v 'cr'• a, .N io N E: o `on c� is o J '= v w° o gl 3 o' a t` :E o e a w v p iri >> 3 zcc v c a s Q- .� R v w c v H u m a is ='- m� c V °'LD `v v .N- J Y al m. J v E E N E c u. O u C N o 0 ti c `al c v in p1 a ry E c v .Yac' J E a ua o y fn' v u 'w 'S o' R.c p o c' o n-=' v RJ' z O v al o, z' u` � ci- ¢ � 3 J i- n- J u ¢ O o. N o 3 •3 pl v a w a a 'lar a; O! U V a V a > N E a a c °1 E �' ^ � �"•1 h 3 'ala =' a " c v � a l++ p a o a c o o c o v v o v a c v a v a � 'L• m X 0 a w O •C p g. O w � d a T ip n• w �•a w o � ae s o O '2 E � E o a w •'" v m i 'a '= a a° o z z d z o 3 r z w 0 0 V m ep vi 16 h f0 o o o m o w 1, vr. >as w a c Eos µ o a o a V 0➢ 9 '�X :p a s _I h0 a= O G c> 3 Q E o G N o n c ^°' o° d uo L '� > 5 E A a nu m " E au 'c. E .- °° S a C m N a a c v0 1 N 0 T V= .Lo' E co E .'° a o — c o c o o "° 0 w o S 06 n. 40- t Q v -i2 D¢ Z re o w d = w £ o a « c ere `m p o ro A `o ° 3 a o }'z s°o 0 O=" Q vro N o O c Z W 0 O u o9 ai ti N T L N U Y C d G E £ " a J '- ❑ E N ° v m m E UECZ 30 v o v C a W T $ O N Z w a r O a Q o '° o c v N ® E u= v= F u G m Y u o O •C D J 2 W Z LL � O .N-wC.N a E PDi wO O° C A U C N U° ❑ C N U O O C C ao no > > ❑ m❑� � o�z ffi ` `o p ❑,>❑� � G.d`v a a 0« � 2:.ti ❑.°G o a v. s v u v v v N�« v c .c v v y°� m ate, a c° v❑❑ z G W� G O O« ��. �O 'O « G a�+ Z G N G O O« :ti a.. a� C O❑ C E O w v, O w C 3 °1 w � a C E O N t1 a 0 w CO 3 �'v �` W❑ u y .0 3 c D = as Ot �h.� ° O C ° ❑ G v � 3 °¢ b ❑, hh� ° C ° 3 ° w c¢ h w �'ti 3 v a � E ° v o❑ ❑ c� � 0 'o 'o o� 3 v > > E ° v o❑ � -❑ ❑ c� � +"- 0 "a 'o ❑ « E� ¢ � '� 'C o c E a c E a n ' ° `of w ' > v > c « ° � n ¢ ❑ " > > v > c « a a not ❑ ¢ E ¢ °� v G ._ -° nG c ca t a o 5 ° o v c ._ ,O ¢� .G ❑❑ 5 : o v v °�' ry u a �',_°'❑'^y.` ° «v.s '- 'o E a E h v .'.. = Q0, h ° E "' s c c v� o ° v� o¢ w .c c c v v� 'a n w c a Z o ❑ ❑ " j v c `p ao Uta ° v o'va� °z o >. �i v«j ° °u° ``"� ° a °c = a« � v v 3 ' v ® �' � •'« .v. ' o, uv, N � o o � � � � ❑« � C o o � a ¢ a ¢ { W O cv .� u c❑ v° ._ 3. v c G .N " � c❑ v o '- 3. v :b ❑❑> v e ❑ v W w o u � E w � c c o .= E x " a `o > '� >❑ a v v a '❑ y E w � t ._ � h n a 5 u v "❑ c � ° o ni c >D a❑ a o � « ❑ « ❑ '� u v � a w a °�' a i- « o � 'N iv v � ` a � o a o E v, E � .. v, ae .c v w � � a v 0 C O ® ❑ �D Q w y G d' O ` v _ cf t H Z g O ri rri v U .i M ti v v N `❑ p} NI Y N V `C 'O v > o > a N 0 c E E 7 M1. 3 F ai E E `v O 3 a •Ea c N O VU p U C N ° E z N` 0 .L E N N c 3 M N o O U N N N N N V v m r c o � a N � �« o rn o � v o p o f. ❑ ❑, o c�°° v' v o ` a c ''c a v❑ o a °1 0 aO1 v `❑ O` �° a v `❑ 'a v 0 Q Y „° °c '❑ °c a v o c a° o ma 'o ° v o c o° o£ '❑ o, a'C.• 4 C p a'C, 4 0 0 u� � .t.. Y W W� 'i" t C O O u� O 71, °O U O. C C � �❑ A y �i O ], E N' G C O y C ,Ep uS.. E O N N C N�� O E� °5.. N G H .N •w�: w° '� v� h o'c. 1^. o Y g« � `❑ h v� 3 a'c❑. o c w +�. O o a ❑ H o -❑ i E ❑' o -❑ p o �, '� h a v v E ❑i re o°❑ °❑ a h o° `v v'c w e o a h o°� u'c v e i�+a � a E` o`� o '^ d `'� s o E v o� ❑ ,� o ._ r; Y`o w v o v❑❑ a y° v i v o i e v°° o a`ti v i v o a � ° w ® � C C Q O m m s m N c CI 0 o s }y c O a a O V W O E m N v w L N Z cW CG G V � v v :.i 3 33❑ o- c a v rn c O C� 1 Y E a ro T V QI m a o ro c E rri ,_ Q " o o 41 sn E o o N 0 _ a U S C L Ec a l7 � a ¢ o c c E o o w -c v o c'C.. `�. �i ❑ "� a�a�oyu vto o¢v ta¢E°' $ oo�4°a'na� ❑ � v v a '^ s u 'o o E w O `O a❑ Y a o c C ❑ a u v� v o U y E S O a a a a C C N �. � i al p � rJ N � � � a O � a'Cw, ❑ +5., U❑ W -C '� O a � ° N C U VI C m a ,,cNC j C N Q Oi � 1� ui � ° y -aO � s ❑ a � C O w ❑ d aa. '` C O Q '^ y O J d. 4��. Y W� a '° '� W h] a� n a �' O ° C� C S ° 0 4 a p N❑ N I� � pi o a N +. a'' ♦a. a❑ W N E❑ y ° C n -C ° d 1¢ N a d a ❑U o ,.w ;° t ° a O a a n a o a °❑ a m .q P c m� a Z n= =tlu f v a Y C C iE n v a s z .c 0 c Z CW cG G o u n a N N N 3 Ln D J O .x n o� m0z o N+ v a o c 3 N v� N v N � Ol N f ✓� V a r G v N C. s �• L[ N Q a, own u E C _V w o ~ a' N� 0➢ a "n c� E a N N 16 O r ° v o v o w a >• N .1 T a N INVA r- E N 40 a a E 'O - 0 E N m ai c r a J n a E a m c a a Na >> -o N o} u N L Li � a 42 c °j m o w o � c � v iso„ o ° c °i 3 ,°`. v v •`�' o .x c a i s N E 'O QS �. O °f„ O s OSN �O w. C` O� O H U 3 N �• a W N a m ` V) W N yv O .° C J U 4 N p C� w c o$ N a w c w1. � o w O N N O 7 .0 C• y" ° y a w G ro =• ar m o• L- W m a o w 00 Z .Q 09 C C A W � S O •v m o 3 a •C y v a ,o c o O' N O vii U CW G 0 u N N N N N O N a a a a C C V .n V o a ` I C V° O Q' ~ a O@ v Y u O° C p 'C L N1 ro G in � y� a a tti y 1L C C @ i+ O C J N C Q L o f @ a Y ry v ee c v c N c a� m Q'o' m m n EC 2 4,1 S w M C N a VC) `0 c c +• o s w E o cr o 3� ro IL "v' 6 � } � ❑ 6 � Q L ? W H� ❑ •c o m o of v H �, a ° s° � a� ° >° U v ai u �«' s+, � ¢ o o 3yvENv vo _ w as T°,�O'C�ooS:a °'`p33>, ary Eo o ° p o cEj " o c °° > h v n° a •,� v �' o� u E c 'p S', E a w v h c S v v v o ` o ..o v° n � E p °� c c s p� �' °.°-° u u z ° o y o � ° p a o +• a a°� :, e c o D o E � o a o c ,tom t2 o ti p r o '• � 3 E� 3 0 1° ��¢ 1° i� N ni � �¢ o` 3 0, o � `a 3 a `o e "' a 'cao a caa O o m a v v o D .e vi � U O W vl o a o in c E w `@ `a m 4 '^ G ro � � •o o. a v c E w e `@} cu N c O � '� @ N v E -a c w n a •N o Q a NE cv �.. mu in W v O �d3 ` 0 3 w m m a w w ®, o �@ u o z.,, z@m z@ 3 z z 0 0 V ei N M C' yj tp I J W C C 3 Q T =0 0 s o.Ev.M � y N^ C W -C S° E > V _ m 0 E 21 3 'C ¢ o c m w E ¢•- u ^ 5 m o n o E ..� E V O v UI N Vl W W N m W c C W N E 3 MY ; O N W Z Y' d0 tll rr: ol v N U W O O gNa-a nE W > m U O c p c N W w X� c c v E o >• = E c w 2 E Qv.., ¢ w._ °s'• o � >, �-ago N � E w m� W g; r m W c +• N o a on Y � O a vdi` Q. a� C❑ n � ❑ v o� c.n of ��¢ h c Y� c �• v� 0 a w � h ❑❑❑ c p, ❑ � � m '� u v o v 3 0 2 e c n O 0 3 v o v o v u o °' p N c u ¢ � o sp oo v S ❑ ❑� IR w O of ❑ u❑ O � ry� � j� O N C O O Y � y °i u ❑ o o u .c ❑ v N z c s E � o. � o C oL �• v a W V O � ❑ w v c � m °"° V N N jp N' E E E C a x m m •�' m Y W t] m .°'v � � •V O S q� S � � v, i O °•r y 3 g m�?� s a° 0 3 46 A c u m E v Env„ u m v u~i a Y a a E 0 3 o° oy u o e s c ° a c m x o t- a u 14 o6 N N c v c rv. 0 0 N y N V _ N N O V a � N O U 'Cf V W 6 N �A S a N ✓i G �- m N o41 ro N E on o Ca o O p S v u 0 6 c a v v c v o�`a � •°. pia > a 3 ° ti c a c a 41 O a n m v v a v v¢ w p v v s � o �i � � ,„ � o a 2 � rv• Oc C m@ m a Y a A N v w •ro o v o$ c 3 m f m O N ro@ a a s w a F Z IT; N � � \ \\ \ \ 41 ( ( \ ) \ 0 {§\ \ §\ \\ \ �\�± ){ E{[} f / - E{ / - (/ - _ {\ ) a / 4E q\\ } o „ z N M1• S ° a � m ry L a w qp C a W C O O � C y l6 N $ F C_ N T O N Iwl :J Q 0 z c _ N N O a _ ` U v � \ .y E � v c c a \❑ s v v '° E� v ai o, E c a❑ ° �� � z v i v o� n� �� •� Q' y a c „sv„ w o s O ❑ N\° C =1 C O [' Cy vi N � U > O N C. o� T ° � a E o W 4G't E TM N E N n• ppA ro a N O 'a o Q= Cq C W �O y d N C W w C E d.0 N g Ni5 cr 0 z w OU r4 N M Ch Li LD P 00 9 LI U N -p a a U L � '47 3 V Q �- > 0 � G � N V � a N N N � y a `m a - e � > � c H 'm o ° E i � c 3 0 O � V � E ° 0 0 - am In Z A 0 C N v > 3 v a a E E na u n `v n ® 0 e Ow E• N u C C W a. 30 'C N a E LR E W != tai N oo I, o u o - E O Z O Z 0 � o W n O c c O a ¢ � ° O G o •c v E v T - E E F l7 o E o av W ° �S N a E z h a u n � 0 H O E _ c a G N G 0 H In v o In � v a h 3" E �• > c c o a v v c o o v v E E E n o c IM a c Z n •° 0 � N� a N v o N IA I ai� w o v v a � m OF p c �m C Q Z E c z > a � Z V a E � vai w U � 3 Q Y I.J O. p VI p O y a a a O U N N w ti n. o Z G a C O Y In O' S A J u ? N z cZ L V r N m e 9 LI U a 3 V Q �- � a N N N � y a `m a - e � H 'm � a a a c 3 0 O � E ° 0 0 s a In Z o p 0 C N w a E E n ® e Ow N i C C ✓ � b➢ 0 E E LR E 0 != tai N oo I, uL Z O Z O Z S W n O G E Ly U � o o o o av ° a E z h a u n � 0 C N a G N G 0 H In G Ot In � v a h 3" E �• a v v c o o v v E E E e w 6 O ,O„ W > w a o a � m OF p c �m C Q Z E c z e E E Z V a E � vai u Q Q Y I.J O. p VI CZ G O U N N M N v V v a G y a E i c o r a.o c v c E z E — ovai 0 y w a E c c iu un ° w c E try OA �p IL W C n c O p L Y M'. J VNj N 0 oo�oa E- Sa u E Q U v ov7 T 'io a r c 3 v o a E O tiA N a a v �" � s � V � � U :'l E •� a O o '� a •� j 6 'a O j~ �• 4 N •° w t ro¢ E, w w a 3 o a ai ✓� S O E �O ° U 6 0 N b S° a.. v C 3� o '�° ro vn, m 01 'c d v 'v ° v ® ro •B � C OO m n 3 E m m } a m a o E o c v ° r^ E ��� c v m 'v � }• O$ u v C S L V .O a 1A y V [I' ell tD P eq ., T. � .� , �'. Dale Helvig Tuesday, June 5,2018 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 811 Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: 2525 Main Residential Development This is a repeat of the May 15, 2018 letter with updated attachments. The first Specific Development, SD -1 was approved on April 29, 1976. Over the past 42 years an additional 91 Specific Developments have come before the City Council. Of those only 17 have been approved in which they had an adjacent property line with Residential Development; and of those 17 only 2 had a height restriction greater than 35 feet. This being the SD -21, OC Register Building on Grand Avenue and the recently approved SD -92, Tiny Tim Plaza on 5th Street, which is limited to 45 feet. The applicant of 2525 Main Street Development is proposing to construct a five -story building apartment building wrapped around an eight -story parking structure with a height in excess of rte' I encourage you to look at the attached list of which highlights these 17 SD/R1 projects. You'll quickly see how far out of the norm the 2525 project is, and realize this project is not good for Santa Ana. Sincerely, QA A. It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) Page 1 of 21 r ea' cc: SummarVof Specific Developments in Santa Ana Adjacent to Residential Developments (R1) citycounciI@santa-ana.org Raul Godinez II Santa Ana City Manager Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Candida Neal, Planning Manager Vince Fregoso, Principle Planner Phil Schaefer, Vice Chair, Historic Resources Commission Michael p`Valle, President, Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNH) Page 2 of 21 Summary of Specific Developments in Santa Ana Adjacent to Residential Developments (RI) Location Height Restriction Stories Density (Dwelling Units per Acre) Notes I SD -06 35 Feet 2 Story 18.0 Woodlake Condominiums NO LONGER NEXT TO RI ZONING. 2 SD -07 35 Feet 2 Story 8.0 Aspen Village Apartments NO LONGER NEXT TO RI ZONING. 3 SD -11 35 Feet 11.5 Amberwood Town Homes 4 SD -15 2 Story Residential Condominiums 5 SD -17 2 Story Single Family Homes 6 SD -21 150 Feet OC Register Building 7 SD -35 36 Feet 2 Story 22.0 Single Family Homes 8 SD -36 35 Feet 3 Story 38.9 Solare Apartment Homes 9 SD -41 35 Feet 3 Story San Tropez Luxury Apartments 10 SD -42 2 Story 10 Single Family Homes 11 SD -44 2 Story Denied by the City Council on June 15, 1987, Santa Fe Village Apartments NO LONGER NEXT TO RI ZONING. 112 SD -46 3S Feet 2 Story 2 units with a total maximum of 23 beds Heart of Jesus Retreat Center 13 SD -50 35 Feet 2 Story Single Family Homes 14 SD -53 2 Story Seventeen single-family lots with seventeen single-family dwelling units_ 15 SD -77 35 Feet 2 Story One (1) single family dwelling for each 6000 square foot lot Single Family Homes 16 SD -83 35 Feet 2 Story 15.0 17 SD -92 45 Feet —21.9 Tiny Tim Plaza: Fifty-one (51) multiple -family dwelling units for affordable housing, including one (1) onsite manager's unit. PROPOSED PROJECT AT 2525 N. Main Street: > 85 Feet 5 Story 84.1 Effectively Effectively a six story because entertainment on top; a wrap around eight -story parking structure structure w/ 910 parking spaces. Page 3 of 21 Y t C � m ` v a z 5 m 6 E z L Q W '.,. IN- G a Z Z Mz u m a Y m z LO M ,Cg O C s z w o E o o0 m o m v ,n m c a '0 0 u m O u ot J c a v � 0 S u m o w 0 y u m `v c O'D3 m o v t r E ti m m m° o u t o +% c +: v a m m c a N -� a° 'o a.e '0 c cp ° c° c m 0 Jaw- J o u' u v cO wm 4j +' —0 0°c° w v v v ° v v v v o a v p L v Q N v E c m n s E y y u a E m° c> c u v v ,� w 0 E Y c m `m io m e ami r v v J° Y m 3 a ° c '^ v .°0 y r a n J m pp o- N m U m U 9 d E m To- _ m N m m W C °. ° u a m a v a' 0 n '3 a❑ E wtl u m o V) m vvi v u m E "' E O v `�- o v a° n m +v. m o ua Y 0 "_ v m 0 y o y n. M u v m> a v v Q Z yn W aci v ;,; 0 `—' v 0 v m 0 m u v c a Q o ai v E CE:x y°_, ami o V v u v vi o 0o v o h °' '� m« -va o v c m V1 Y N Y C a o `i .s. n v°- -0 E c a E -o '> c m v m 0° a vt v v 0 `m v .m0 a^ ,; ,mn v E c$ v ;u m M o o c o m v 'rw u L2 U E aomo� n� a'az aaams a LAJ z E'd c m° E t > o® v u ° 'c y '^ J m `o y °- ° a' O .J e -I G Y Y V Y `—° m ,. w_ « ° u E R f.J E a -mo a o� °, s o o,'M v m s a° Y m y m-�° v 'C m >> a 9 ,mn ,mn a+' x `o la! ® m 'v c v °c° > =' s v `o D o x ,On rua a m N E m- 3 E E m cw m `6 0. v W v= J J O O v J v d i m v -O v L O v L c `o L c C s N n o `o J 3 Y Y ,V m o � � v m 'O O Y ry '§ I.F�j iyr z O ) in"yFi jYs LMJ � � W \ yr U t9 0 m y E o '� E JS 3THANSUS ® W vF- E es. V) °L J m c c u m v V V z Vl u '� u m u am. rua ui ui Q v o N v� a� C � z kG ao O _ (U c v na E E N 9 K W i 3 a uj F Q > u Z vo 2 v Z ZD w f� a E v 6 'n 3 CL +• u £ o p 4 Z v Rw v 3 > 0 o v O ° N w O C a � " nv v s^ � 3 v ry oa U cn N V dW ti LU m Y w m O L6) V p in Ln 0 u Cc 2 w 9 LU ..d h m vat o 3 z N o c v "i w •� A m m osv, o o w a u O_ O W.I =oo ID v NN s° u° « c' o` t ,s, m o o m o a w O c � v �et7sinlhjit H• ono « h T O O O Q #S�M�Ntl3]Ow u a Vr y 6i E w N N ._ m u t'i o Is ® ® 7 u c c E Z v al •-w, iia ^ in M N v O of 0 to o 'in u °u m a U rc tS'�fy e} W ,{`nfJ� 0® 74 v a vv a Q_ W � blJ C s 3 C; u Z o z O S y °i+ O (ry� Y mu M d z N Q O w � N O va Qa N 2 CN ° aL`+ Q m G' n.N 449 l7 �.O—� N I— Z m LU m m— 2, Q C) d 3 c 3 c LD. S aC yj ° N pip tl9 v C N of wt 9 C LLJ O o m ra.. n0 s ^= O Q v CL a v ._ L v Q v mIL aii v~i c_ v o o m y y yy O'' PP�ww f1'9 N °p '�' O H N E m v}'i 'F°- v E a ci S ° O 'O ° N i E to `> m !_^ m m N Y C t d m 3 3 S U O �n +L+ O O in �mbA � m® z E W m E as y < m O � � m v a ss vusi N W T aYm+ Ej N O J ss' py1.'ef"2,�➢& cc 'C m 'G a C 't'i O ua° assifil AL ak vE -2u o. Q w N N m a m n u v f}' ir� � IIIc a I TIi� 5 5(: W"^ � F��.F 4T Gww.� •NF1�B1 fi . 9 lM MW � a t � 1S Uley S ]S Area g r ^A 1 w W t Q 44 u { r r • i1 �� s' • • r' .r F.. ILI, IRM Uyyv x ��' F, � � • a it � tt� y„! M �r �. €ie 1 7,71 '+ {rei L f.rfia lfi Al � kvi�f nS' nK4 � I A i C.d M •� n � � K CJ ZI 10 0 u v ti v v > v t E E s v o m Y d O ` Y `- u v v v a 3 p UW U T N O v N N p p > c aiE E Ow u O N 3 N a u o v m E v U c o x `o m n m t u in v c S Y o > v z uo 0,LLJ m u y �s1 m w a > v a t cog D v m y m o a o a ':tn E ® c O E« v a 7 u> uu 5 i Cf V U w a Q m i.i ®v OVI O V 3w C N in C O N O OO Qe 61 h =p O OC > O W N VO W C C S L� W L N V •N L L O E '_ p N �^ d OC O GC '7'I{J I,J O Z wO O O mavu tN U @ O ro 0 C N vi O Y 6L1 O O. w O •@ Y 3 � V 0 v v v C O O j Q N J N C N O� 6 a n^ .-. �o E v g v 00 co.L O L 0 O L O O L X tp LU p O •_ O ® a Q a a v m N> E i U iN w O tav O YC / YON N ua \ 0 o nuoo W) vo onmE 3 °Y' V N k p v F .�`-, 'v o p O p O p u .y y v o api - o U z .7a m w� a v a v a w m �n w Be ® w V9 fV l9 a 12 Lo zi µ .. �R3'i ,.�� ix �(` e• � .plp • to5 {t�F, h k_ h Fi _ b �t a ---pppggq'„ � t5� b•wQs ���NN ei.�/b r OO 1( i� i.. i'tgt Yik� tl Af anyb +q � 9 NNE l� � N�Su�i61 b6u ^n�61 .• -� wj LL LL LL N m � N M N l0 W W fl E Q 0 O V q M l0 V ® a d -E s y « 5 O m m m E E E N N o v o o o 00S of m` �O1=rmmm M ® Z tQ M, N N i M Z LU I.Id = W W O � w m > u ® U P, O O p yLn M OWC N ® QJ Z V y LU > a, O 0 N a w H o ® —A v S o m _ A Y `o v '0 a Y > ` 7- V v t7v" m E v W L V C O i^ c V13 o �' Js a N:12 N .� G N u mi s q ® n v �dt+3yr, Q" tia �✓ E �t,`T PL � f�I1� Y I�q � ® �riw,ou M ® N ' ` :GE V uj n � v N v t(n® ao a ¢« YY�Y CL µ Q O O 7O N 00 GJ m O N J Y Y O N CL = W ® 00 tL O pp N i i 5 �s m LU c N a v @ w Cf N LW o L O v .0 O •_ = N . > y u 4J CC O h > v v oo Oli m L— v c o 4xd=s o u Tse =a 0 l ® 2 X .,w I� Z w U x � a � Iv y a � � � w Wv D 1„ a _ u ~ L FF f^ L` ® h U 2 3 W CL M O (n ® OI d T N I m m m u M < 0 E E ui :!2 0 0 0 0 00 M 00 Q9 Maw to M LU 0 L9 wi , 04 - IL -, 9 Um 0 m C pq - NJ W EA 0 0 [if C u CS lD z wi 00 C) > (3) 0 rq 5 u z ix 0 6B 0 D z t LU o E tq c C19 a� WT 0 u w m U 0 4.4 •3 o U m I -Ngga S � r mip� Lu N > . opgD.AmigAL 2 2, , , 18 ul"n E WJ W21M '-'ij m s aum —6-2 � > 3 m "MIN O E . F' -MMMIMI A, !'RA LSOA o C :L r,�—rc— No mv Val M� or NIVICTIM, '4............. e,...... 0 U) N m = w 3 ✓ n Jr :� �4ra1` .v� y V r fA Rd Raltl St� �xnux"a S ftakt St 4 Ot y, +"SAS $aMa Fu Vllla9e 6r+H�6* i } 4i 3SI4W tw,,Pl q {� ai �14[M�t9' +- s�Traivra. all "+N S 1. A W h 1 AY i r +` ■ • I qV. m o v 0 � 6 N O v t p C O 3 m c V- ..101++ c c O O C Oi 0 U/ f0 O L Y V m E '% 3 75t = m ;� u o o u n H LLJc '^ 0 w c° v c -o o m c a W m .s O u C 0❑ V L O w V m V m y V y Y _ 2 E o m m v o m h 0 O` F C N LL Q ♦r Q Vi mM O O O O U N L m= m L O. 2 1 L O M VI N N u u u m m m a a a N N N N O N lD N n _O h9 Q± y C L en a a �' Z Z O W 1 Lu Lu p a Ein a c cl V m O' C m 4,A V9 K F-- - Z Zco O) M v O '6 pv LU 1 0 u N C M G > X `W Ll v0 L j 6J i h N c m` m m r E 41 VI L YCL N h U Q f10 m N C ly p $ LD O X o S' E v N Te �• AY} T.. P IL �. h o m C G Ix > V gN l ® (µ9]I Y V O O ® a U LU W µl.�' O 'O Lu 9n +SSYA m v ,y# I 4 u r MM LO lJ V1 LLJ ® N K can a d of 11 Zj OW I i' j T1 -I ' 4 ` F 6 L r� Y 4 �: yl 4 I` I Y a R � z L z � z . 4` E 77 w r 4Ir tdY l7 iii m 11 �� I� m ZLU 3' S a ul ® Cf t0 L�7 G OC Q z � c >_O o t� v ® n CJ o 0 oc cd F c P+ z r w o o D 3 u LLI d 7 S m A ho w W T ouu - op U U mi m 3 v. d m > v > C u Vl 1�/1 IO (R�N� � AOFi -"DNI�1d� " m ��fbdAl"lh[iDtl3hVi EM ua c_ w u6 a w 3 w = ® v cb a m m0 V®`'1 0 N a vvi W I t �3 i Ln L' „y LU Q1 1' I a v �. Vy G yt,,Yi"ir�MttlCSrtn,ea � s .� a� 4 aA as saawNvd m 1AI i25 ° is Q OJ D NLvjJ d u Q w Z ® p Z C 'm v a ° v o 6LI Ci m Nc« m h U Y E C� ! N E `p ° m a m n° a v N ti LV. �a W A+ y �••� bO Y i L VI f0 N -D `J �' N L a c c ++ L� (O O 0 w m T O Y^ fl. m D N n p O E CL d v '�,'' of O 'O Oi L 'O O. L N '^ N L m °- 9 U L U O .m L a S h N a O S O J tm y C C a m O Q E L V w h O Y L �n O. O O O 00d m wN N m N V N O Y O �• U N m h V G O X N fl_ C U N U Q y U U) L N N Q N m C Z V a° Ow LU—. 3~ of w �. L C .D N v 0.— C Q h0 D N h L 'O m p U O..� j ] E C C L °°° v m o v n W N N 9 � E H Q C X ILI .= E C S v N o p Roo °' c m m '� N a aL+ 0 C O VI C 0 p E m m �n Y° O ,mp = U Y Ll v O E W hp O E Y U L v U NN N vUi pp L 0 N C u L bA H C O m O L N 3 N E G w C 3 U. i O w ++ zu Y 3 `1 m C m �? O 'n 0 0 C 9 C L m O. d O] ® c O N U "' U O 1m+ Y i 03 N C l�0 O V LU Vf O O' v Ul U N of p w L Q> of N O -O Y m Q m 'a ++ O u E ,� O Z u 0 U v u Q w LL O Ln° - 0 T Y Y Y N! f M N N N C E N w w w- L L L }+ QJ V@-• @ V @ lS O d N W @ (0 @ > > > • v� Q C UI V' N O1 ) O O it > 3 ChCa O t4 M p C 131 @d Q O C w C °_ E s v w -uo ¢ E E E E 1. z CCY V C@@ C J YI 0 0. CA m x w -v o a cu E c c Baa � P ®@ 6 O@ C � ' 1 n F-5 G, � 1 f# / Nluiva i r P � ZLU [LL LU Qi cc �.,, o. .. .. .... Ln w G 15 hRINMb. a�mm O 5m mann m ra�� B' QW � c -a 'm iri c in vi > ® a o °Y' a v m 3 0 ®. d N V N O 'd O v t •a+ CJ h E a m 2, u o .v -� p in u E S O ++ R v a v c@ E LdJ ®N S N u 8- t =o u @ p a N m L @ Q L Q:oa QQ� N m� O o U_ o C v O N Y 4= @ C O c a ® m m c m c m « a 4-E o Q 1%1 W C c0 S E U E T C v Y U . Y N H o U 'C T d@ p 0 V W w c a nn v :o , m_ a m— @ o c @ E E c :. E c E L 3 j@ c uj -L EY O a N@ O> O a C a. 0 tD W as v ua.o (n N N C • • • s N b! N e% E: o E a i= v s Z cn (] N ® z C S va` W�IDIk1[:1"I, n.. N O O an f' a 61 4- O C 0 IJ.d YY W U S v m m i ,{ "`.ifs, Y' rq.-K PS e Q N •4 i ® Ql ^'S t�i5 0. 4 - a Ln K N m � Z00 Lno v v a LLJ y N p0p s ® ® 0 N C (5. ID CL w v @ v 1St W m •� -O N i� V @ W O 3 h v K � ca P$1 -v 2 Z ice+ N (GO v O CN 'O 0 -6 U O W h G UU N ++ U O U U Q Is 13SNns w v on = v v m n< Ulm flit i� aaAp li w w a E 1S 431MVH v Z= s w w O ® O1 W O v m N N N U n W1 E O W z H iL Q m in 2 .�-I Q V V9 N N d m a u -a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS 262 290 hparuna, tits 1",evehl 402 Ap4irtmeWti EGLvvt-N; -., t4may nfiA to keaw, Z47 d patitawdf, (7*5tvde5'$ L� 1 Spa # ��(` t 409"Aparvoepts td4tdu^desl i; UfTS Room Hades Ia-stsvAvtj. "ft±n 144 L fe _ M o a ♦ i { Committee of the A SantiagoNeighborhood Association Page 21 of 21 City of'Santa Ana CICJMO�niixle y'C Mayo, Council Dolpartmants LnIffloymont Quick Links tornc plionurig and Building • oncp.ny lMorma6on sc.c.1, Fircirooty Activity Property Activity I'll I 1 111 Planning History Building Permit History Occupancy History Inspection History Map P..a[ Legal Descrilifird, Lot NA Tract NA Block NA Control. Tract 75401 Canaria Block illog Black Group I G.,,..l Plan Be 05 Z.,dog P Vac Suffix Being" Standard Hinght District Police end 182 Police District Nofficaral Neighborhood Pink Siudiwg. Tolffir, Ararly.n. Zen. M Ri Ance NA flood good X -0602320163J School Dlt,i.t Santa Aria Unified Orozco, Norma From: Pam Sapetto< Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 2:00 PM To: eComment Cc: Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh; Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena Subject: 2-5-19 City Council Public Hearing Agenda item #75E Attachments: Addington CouncilMemo_020119[1].pdf Please find attached a letter from the Applicant of the proposed multi -family project at 2525 N Main, Agenda item #75E Public Hearing: Final Environmental Impact Report, Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment and Amendment Application #2018-10. Pamela Sapetto Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc www.saaettorea lestate.com 5 AC 2525 MA I N LLC February 1 , 2019 The Honorable Miguel Pulido and Council Members City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Proposed Addington development at 2525 N. Main Street Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council Members, The proposed Addington apartment home development will appear before City Council next week. The Addington is the product of nearly a year of community outreach and efforts to work with City staff, which has resulted in a project that provides a number of benefits to the City and is sensitive to its surrounding neighbors. To aid in your deliberative process, I wanted to share the enclosed white paper, which summarizes our project, the benefits it will provide and answers questions that arose during last month's Planning Commission hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions about our proposal. I can be reached at 310.508.4083 or ryan@vineyardsdc.com. Sincerely, n Ra YO ulnick y 9 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE #<200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 926bO Page 2 of 9 The Addington Responsible Development for Santa Ana February 2019 The building in disrepair on the corner of Main Street and Edgewood Road provides a unique opportunity to create something new that greatly benefits the City and its diverse residents. The Addington was designed to transform this underutilized site into something that uplifts the community and fulfills our City's needs. In its current state, the empty building at 2525 Main Street is an eyesore and has become a magnet for undesirable activity. It does not generate the type of revenue for the City that would be expected from such a prominent parcel. The property is currently zoned professional office, which would allow for a three-story office building. By right, an office building could be built without any additional discretionary approvals from the City. With this as a backdrop, we set out to design a project that would be better for the City and its residents. Our proposal for the Addington calls for 476 apartment homes and a package of City and community benefits that make it a far superior option than what could otherwise could be developed on this site. Here's why the Addington is the right choice for Santa Ana: 1. The Addington is a Better Project than What's Allowed by Right: The proposed project generates significantly more funding for the City, provides for affordable housing units, funds park improvements and supports a series of benefits to neighboring Park Santiago that simply would not materialize if the site remained vacant or was developed into a new office building. 2. The Addington was Designed to Be a Responsible Neighbor: The plan for 2525 Main Street was the product of nearly a year of community input, and was sensitively designed to limit impacts to privacy, reduce car trips through surrounding neighborhoods, and eliminate the need for guests to park on nearby streets. The following memo outlines in detail the benefits this project will create for Santa Ana and the many steps that were taken to ensure the project is a responsible and valuable neighbor to the surrounding community. LOCATION AND DESIGN Supports City's Goals for Main Street Corridor The Addington was designed to protect the privacy of surrounding neighbors. A typical setback on a project of this type ranges from 10 to 20 feet, but The Addington has been placed a minimum of 42 feet away from property lines and more than 72 feet from existing homes. The Addington features a 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE #Lj 200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Page 3 of 9 large landscaped buffer with both existing and new trees providing visual screening. We have also reduced building heights along this eastern edge and strategically placed windows for neighborhood privacy. In fact, the closest upper story window within the new community will be more than 125 feet from any existing home. The structure of the Addington will be a maximum of 5 stories high and would step down to 2 story structures toward the existing single-family residential areas on the east side of the project site. This design provides a transition between the single-family residential development to the east and south, and the commercial offices and sites along N. Main Street. The design enhancements to this site also include the following: • Increased height from 6 feet to 8 feet for the existing masonry wall on the east side of the site; • 42 foot minimum setback from the eastern property line, maintaining mature landscape; and • New landscaping and architectural forms and building heights would step down roof heights on the east portion of the site to be approximately 20 foot high structure. The Addington is not simply a better alternative to the current blighted property, or the replacement office building, which would be allowed by right. The Addington is the only alternative that enhances and contributes to the city and its residents. 240 NEWPORT CENTER RIVE SUITE #200 NEWPORT BEACH C/1 92660 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Generates funding to house 100 low-income Santa Ana families The latest homeless headcount required by the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department estimated that 4,792 homeless people lived in Orange County with 2,208 in shelters and 2,584 on the streets. This housing shortage is a severe crisis and has resulted in a vacancy rate of 2% in this area of Santa Ana. Typically, cities have between two to Page 4 of 9 Highlights $6.1m for City's HOO Supports 100 new affordable units • 25% more affordable units than three people for every one housing unit. Santa Ana, however, is among the worst ratio in the nation at 4.5 people for every housing unit and is considered a job rich and housing poor city by the Southern California Association of Governments. The Addington's in -lieu fees will help fight this growing crisis and put an affordable roof over the head of approximately 100 working Santa Ana families. Under the City of Santa Ana's Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO), developers have the option to build affordable housing on site or pay an in -lieu fee that is designated to fund off-site affordable housing units for Santa Ana residents. Early on in the planning process, we consulted with City of Santa Ana staff, planning professionals, and heard opposition to inclusive affordable housing on site from Park Santiago residents, so we have elected to pay the in -lieu option. Overall, we will pay approximately $6.1 million to the City under the HOO prior to pulling permits which will inevitably produce more affordable units than the inclusive option, as displayed in the following table: Off -Site: Inclusionary Fee HOO Current Fee $15 per sq. ft. of rentable area Total In -Lieu Fee $6,182,345 Units In -Lieu Fee would provide off site 100 Units if Inclusive in Project 75 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE#200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92650 TRAFFIC AND PARKING 40%fewer car trips than an office building The Addington design ensures that vehicular access and circulation would not occur on the eastern portion of the site, toward the single-family residential land uses by placing the only vehicular entrance and exit to the project on N. Main Street. This entrance would lead to a central parking structure. Page 5 of 9 Highlights • No entrance on Edgewood • 40% less traffic than an office building • More parking than required In contrast to this proposal, if an office building were to be developed on site (as is allowed by right) it would have approximately 2,600 employees (according to Core Net Global the average square foot per employee is 151) who would be arriving for work in the morning and leaving in the afternoon at very tight intervals, with increased trips at midday for lunch. With increased trips, the egress on Edgewood would continue to be open which would cause a significant amount of traffic to cut through the neighborhood at peak traffic times. Trips. The current blighted property generates few if any trips due to it being a vacant office building. The only trips that are currently taking place are caused by overflow parking from the neighboring Discovery Cube. We commissioned a traffic study conducted by Translutions Inc., reviewed by City staff and a third party appointed by the City, which confirmed that a new 387,465 square foot office building (allowed by right) will create 1,184 additional trips or 40 percent more daily trips than The Addington. It would create 278 more morning peak trips, and 236 more evening peak trips. Parking. The project plan includes 2 parking stalls per residential unit in the building. Given the projected unit count, 70% studios and 1 -bedrooms, and 30% two or three -bedrooms, the project is significantly overparked. Comparable cities require parking ratios to be in line with bedrooms. For example, the City of Los Angeles requires 1 parking stall per bedroom plus a 25% increase for guest parking. The figure below represents The Addington's parking ratios. Unit Type Count Parking Stalls proposetl Parking Stalls at the Addington (other Cities) Overparleed Studios 63 126 63 1 Bedroom 273 546 273 2 Bedroom 112 224 224 3 Bedroom 28 56 84 Guest Parking Included 161 Total 952 805 147 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE $vire #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Page 6 of 9 Additionally, parking studies of two comparable, local Class A developments found the following use of parking stalls: Parking Enforcement. To ensure that surrounding neighborhoods and residential streets are not impacted by The Addington and its residents parking needs, several measures shall be included in the parking management plan: The Addington is overparked. Parking is free for residents • The lease agreements all state that residents must park in the parking structure and two violations will result in an eviction. There is no access to the project site via Edgewood, making it incredibly inconvenient for anyone to park in the neighborhood and walk to the front of the building (located on N. Main). The building is constructed with parking above grade, therefore residents and their guests park on the level/floor they live making it very convenient access to their homes. 240NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92560 # of # of Parking Stalls Comparison Project Ratio Residential Units Occupied at Peak Times The Mark 300 339 1.28 Ninteen0l 264 213 0.71 Parking Enforcement. To ensure that surrounding neighborhoods and residential streets are not impacted by The Addington and its residents parking needs, several measures shall be included in the parking management plan: The Addington is overparked. Parking is free for residents • The lease agreements all state that residents must park in the parking structure and two violations will result in an eviction. There is no access to the project site via Edgewood, making it incredibly inconvenient for anyone to park in the neighborhood and walk to the front of the building (located on N. Main). The building is constructed with parking above grade, therefore residents and their guests park on the level/floor they live making it very convenient access to their homes. 240NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92560 COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS Unparalleled benefits and support The Santa Ana community maintains a bond that is truly unparalleled in the region. We not only want The Addington to be a valuable addition to the community, but we want to ensure that it would contribute and provide benefits far into the future. This project will provide the City of Santa Ana with significant net fiscal benefits in recurring revenues and one-time fees. In its first year, the project will pay more than $16 million in permit fees, of this more than $5 million will go directly Highlights • $5m+ immediately to General Fund • $1.2m+ annually to General Fund Supports important City programs and services Page 7 of 9 to the City's general fund. The project's net annual fiscal benefit to the City of Santa Ana will be more than $1.2 million annually or more than $1.1 million than the existing office structure. These funds can be used to fund much needed City programs and services including youth programs, education, city improvements, and more. It should be noted that the development team recently paid all remaining impact fees for the final phase The Heritage for a total of $34,000,000. The project will remit more than $3.5 million in property taxes annually, of that $1.5 million will go to the Santa Ana Unified School District. However, the project anticipates multi -family residents having far fewer children, so the cost to school children from the project will be less than $5001< annually, resulting in a net benefit of more than $1 million to the school district. SECURITY AND SAFETY A long-term commitment to resident safety As residents of Santa Ana, we know how important the safety of our families and neighborhoods is. That's why we included a commitment to providing 24-hour roving patrols for the new residential community as well as the Park Santiago neighborhood and adjacent park. This commitment is memorialized for 55 years in the Development Agreement and upon request by the City of Santa Ana, the security patrols and actions will be reviewed annually to ensure successful operations. SANTIAGO PARK IMPROVEMENTS $1.4+ million towards park improvements To the north of The Addington is Santiago Park, which includes the Santiago Creek Bike Trail and the Santiago Creek. We have committed to providing over $1.4 million in funds for desperately needed improvements to this park, including safety enhancements, new monument signs, new and improved lighting, and landscaping. Additional Benefits to Park Santiago: Access to some on site amenities • Dedicated Amazon locker for Park Santiago residents • 150K contribution towards getting Park Santiago designated as a Historical District. Street light enhancements. 240 NEWPORT CENTER DR I VE SUITE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Page 8 of 9 LAND USE COMPARISON The Addington provides far more benefits than a new office building The table below summarizes how the Addington is a far superior choice for Santa Ana compared to the office building and is worthy of the City Council's support. Allowed by Right Issue Proposed Project 387,465 sq. ft. office building Development 476 luxury apartments $2 million Immediate City Revenue More than $5 million $5001( Ongoing City Revenue More than $1.2 million annually None Affordable Housing Funding More than $6 million None Affordable Housing Units 100 None Park Improvements More than $1.4 million 3,774 Traffic Trips 2,698 (40% fewer trips) 3 stories Adjacent Building Height 5 to 2 stories None Security Patrols Yes None New Monument Signs Yes None Improved Lighting Yes None Amazon Lockers Yes No Transition/Egress Restricted to Main Street Yes 240 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Page 9 of 9 Conclusion The Addington is a Main Street project with all its egress on Main Street and producing far less traffic than what is allowed to be constructed under the existing zoning. The target market of the Addington is young professionals, nurses and doctors that are employed locally. Main Street is a 6 lane major thoroughfare that has a regional mall, two regional hospitals and many adjacent high-rise office buildings. This area of Santa Ana has roughly 5,000 residents per square mile while much of the city has 12,000 to 17,000 residents per square mile. Main Street is exactly where this project belongs. The residents of the Addington will be the future homebuyers in Park Santiago. As the Addington residents get older and start families they will want to stay in the neighborhood which will organically increase the value of local homes and therefore help grow the values of the current Park Santiago homes. Lastly, we originally pursued this site because it was identified by professional planners, employed by the City of Santa Ana as a location that would be ideal for multi -family residential. These professiona planners have recommended approval, because it is the right project in the right location. 240 VIEW PORT ENTER DRIVE SUITE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92560 Orozco, Norma From: Dale Helvig < Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:42 AM To: Mike Tardif; eComment Cc: Iglesias, Cecilia; Angie Cano; Chris Schmidt; Pulido, Miguel Subject: RE: Council meeting Feb. 5, 2019 - Agenda Item 75E - 2525 N. Main St. Development This is why the applicant wishes to have it designated a District Center and tie it in with the Main Place theme. Dale From: Mike Tardif < Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:26 AM To: eComment@santa-ana.org Cc: Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; Angie Cano <AngieRCano@gmail.com>; Chris Schmidt < ; Dale Helvig < Pulido <MPulido@santa-ana.org> Subject: Council meeting Feb. 5, 2019 - Agenda Item 75E - 2525 N. Main St. Development Council meeting Feb. 5, 2019 - Agenda Item 75E - 2525 N. Main St. Development I am opposed to the proposed development at 2525 N. Main St. The bulk and density of it is too large and will negatively impact the Park Santiago neighborhood. Additionally, according to the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the Planning Commission's denial of this proposed development is final. DIVISION 3. - DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL Sec. 41-674. - Appeal. Any person aggrieved by a determination of the director of planning and development services pursuant to section 41-673 may appeal such determination to the planning commission, which may then approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the plan subject to the same standards and limitations as apply to the director of planning and development services under this division. The decision of the planning commission shall be final. Additionally, I did not see in the Staff report that the developer filed an appeal as required. If nothing else, please consider reducing the project by 30% density— according to Alternate no. 2 of the EIR. Thank you, Mike Tardif Tardif Sheet Metal I Orozco, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:27 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: Art Pedroza should be taken off Planning. Roman Reyna should not vote on 2525 Main Kind Regards, Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant City Manager's Officel nhouston@santa-ana.ora 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Cathy Morehead [ Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:19 AM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org> Subject: Art Pedroza should be taken off Planning. Roman Reyna should not vote on 2525 Main Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council, it has been brought to my attention that Art Pedroza of the Voice of OC has been put on the planning commission. This person is not- impartial on most any topic and should no be on the planning commission or any other public office. Please see this article he just posted. http://newsantaana.com/2019/02/03/the-santa-ana-city-council-can-still-vote- to-open-a-public-hearing-reaardir)a-the-2525-main-st-aDartment-develODment-this- tuesda And... Roman Reyna is under investigation for accepting Dark Money and the 2525 Main Street project he should not be allowed to vote on the project this evening. This is clearly a conflict of interest. Thank you, Cathy Cathy Morehead + Associates www.CathyMorehead.com Orozco, Norma From: Plantamura (US), Michael < Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:28 PM To: eComment Cc: Plantamura (US), Michael Subject: February 5, 2019 Meeting Agenda Item 75E: 2525 North Main Street Project This project has been flawed and worked with the Developer's best interest without any consideration to the residents of Park Santiago from the onset. Here are the facts: 1. Even before the property was sold to the Developer the Project management team told the Developer that the property would be rezoned and that the Developer could build a multi -family complex of "unlimited density and height." What rational Planning Commissioner would allow such a thing? Would you give your teenage son or daughter a credit card and tell them that they have unlimited spending? Of course not!! 2. In order to meet the Developer's request to get this project to a vote from the City Council before the new councilmembers were in place they requested and were allowed to bring this project to the Planning Commission for a vote before the Final EIR was released right after the Thanksgiving break. Luckily the Planning Commission saw through this and ordered the Project Manager to reschedule the vote in January. 3. The Project Management team attempts to say that the density of 81 units per acre is in keeping with other projects in Santa Ana and give 7 examples of such. However as the residents of Park Santiago have been saying, and is proven out by using Google Satellite views, none of these projects is adjacent to a single family residential area. They are misleading assertions. 4. This project violates General Plan Policy 2.10 Land Use which states "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area." The Project Management team tries to assert that these parcels are not part to f Park Santiago and as such there does not need to be any extra consideration given to the resident's concerns. This is a false statement and neighborhood maps supplied by the City indicates that these parcels are in fact part of Park Santiago, thus this is a violation of the Land Use policy. 5. Parking Municipal Code requires a total of 1420 parking spots for this size development. The Project management team is allowing the Developer to have a total of 904 physical parking spots and to use "valet parking" to meet the requirement of 2.0 per unit! Valet parking? At an apartment complex? They admitted that valet parking for multi -family complexes has never been used in Santa Ana before. Another attempt to appease the Developer. Parking in the streets of Park Santiago by residents will happen. 6. The project also violates General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for North Main Street which requires FAR < 1.5. The project FAR is 2.2811 If the Developer was to meet the General Plan requirements he would have to reduce the size of the project by roughly 35%!! 7. The EIR never considered the 190 units planned for the Main Place Mall redevelopment. Within a half mile radius of this project are plans for and/or under construction for an additional 3600 units not counting the Main Place Mall units. Main Place Mall units need to be considered. 8. Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2014— 2017 states that Santa Ana needs an additional 405 units of which 90 are listed as Above Moderate. So far they have added a total of 916 of which 768 were listed as Above Moderate. These are high end apartments and those who say we need affordable housing so you need to support this project are mistaken. To afford the rents a household would need to make between $80,000 and $148,000 using the 30% rule. Santa Ana household income is less than $50,000 for more than 46% of its residents. This project will not meet the needs of Santa Ana residents but will being in people from other regions, just adding to the overcrowding situation. Santa Ana housing units indicate more than 45% are multi- family and now we are adding more instead of developing single family homes. 9. The Developer promised the Discovery Center more than $1M if it would support their project. Again using money to sway votes. 10. The Project Management team acknowledges that this project is not in character with'the Park Santiago neighborhood but has done little to address this other than talk but no action. It is quite evident that the Project Management team is working more in line with the Developer than with the residents of Park Santiago. The residents of Santa Ana recently approved a sales tax increase which is to be used to address budget issues. This hopefully will allow the City Council to make decisions regarding development in the city in the best interest of the residents and not those of the Developer and his money. What Park Santiago residents want is a development project that takes their concerns into consideration and not just being a rubber stamp for the Developers. We've accepted the Aqua Motel project for the homeless and are asking that the City Council take our needs and concerns into consideration and reject this development as it stands and request that the Planning Commission go back to the drawing board with the Developer and the Park Santiago residents and come up with a project that is harmonious and accepted by the community. Thank you. Michael Plantamura Manager Boeing Commercial Airplanes Service Engineering — Flight Controls Mechanical Hydraulic (FCMH) Systems ( ®) Orozco, Norma From: Christine Denny-Helvig < Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:34 PM To: eComment Subject: Fwd: 2525 Main St. and Sound Planning for the Future of Santa Ana Attachments: 2525 City Council Letter - 190205.pdf,, ATT0000i.htm Sent from my phone Begin forwarded message: From: Christine Denny-Helvig < Date: February 5, 2019 at 12:47:19 PM PST To: "mpulido cr,santa-ana.org" <mpulidoQsanta-ana.org>, "vsarmiento@santa-ana.org" <vsannientona,santa-ana.org>, "dpenalozagsanta-ana.org" <dpenalozana,santa-ana.org>, Isolorio@santa-ana.org" <'solorio santa-ana.org>, "rre gaaPsanta-ana.org" <rreynacgsanta- analorg>,"ivillegas@santa-ana.org" <jvillegasddsanta-ana.org>, "ciglesias@santa-ana.org" <ei lesias ,santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 Main St. and Sound Planning for the Future of Santa Ana Signed copy of the below letter is attached: Santa Ana City Council Members 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 I 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 under allocated 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. 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 2 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 3 Santa Ana City Council Members 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. 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+ X1`0 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 {fenny-Helvig Orozco, Norma From: Gary Thomas < Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:46 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 N Main Project Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I would like to bring to your attention that there is a large group of college age students who are speaking in favor of the 2525 N Main Project. At the Planning Meeting I spoke with one of them about their supporting the Project. I asked if they lived in Santa Ana and was told what does that have to do with it. Puzzled I asked if they attended school in Santa Ana and the same response. A little dumb founded was told they visit the city. Plus they didn't appreciate me asking questions and being a person who didn't listen to what they were saying. Then I was suggested that I should leave by the individual and then their friend agreed saying the same thing. I STRONGLY believe only Residence Living in the City should have say in this manner and MORE GIVEN TIME TO SPEAK. Its a public hearing for the residence of the WHOLE CITY. The city is made up of individuals/residences that make neighborhoods that Define the Legacy of the City. I address you as Residences who are Neighbors to look at this Matter as IF IT'S YOUR OWN HOUSEHOLD. The 2525 N Main Project and the Project on Lyon St WILL IMPACT THE WHOLE CITY Beyond Your Term in Public Office. Gary Thomas&the Thomas Household W Mitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:04 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 Main Bldg Kind Regards, Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant City Manager's Office I nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Marl<Ang. [ Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:28 PM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 Main Bldg Dear Mr Mayor, As a fiduciary you have certain ethical guidelines that must be followed. The MOST important of which is that you have a duty of Maintain Public Trust in the Government. To quote former President Obama, "If people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists -to protect them and to promote their common welfare, all else is lost". 2006 The building proposal on Main street does nothing to aid or help the current residents of this great neighborhood, Park Santiago. Thank you, Mark Angell Mitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:04 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 Main Street Kind Regards, Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Susan Burroughs [ Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:01 PM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Reyna, Roman <RReyna@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <CIglesias @santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 Main Street To Whom it May Concern, We are disgusted that Santa Ana would allow these unsightly apartment homes to be built in this historic neighborhood, which would allow for more crime & more congested traffic. Shame on Santa Ana. l� Mitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Stephen Swytak < Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:08 PM To: eComment Cc: Dale Helvig; Judy Swytak Subject: 2525 development project My wife and I are long time residence of North Santa Ana. We are out of state for a prepaid vacation and so cannot attend the city council meeting tonight. We did attend the Planning Commission meeting until the conclusion of it and we're pleased with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the developer's request for zoning change and project approval. The project density is far too high by a factor of 3 or more. The traffic and parking load it will generate is too much and cannot be mitigated. We are pleading with you to abide by the Planning Commission decision and to accept the comments previously presented at it. We ask that you not open the meeting to public comment in regard to the project. We will return to Santa Ana within 2 weeks and would be available to attend thereafter if you wish to open the project discussion further. Thank you very much for consideration of this comment Stephen and Judy Swytak Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Mitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Ellen Koldewey < Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:01 PM To: eComment Subject: Fw: 75E 2525 Main Street Request to Continue Consideration RE: 75E. PUBLIC HEARING —FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 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 (STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 2) — Planning and Building Agency Planning Commission recommended denial of Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 on January 14, 2019 by a vote of 4-2 (Alderete and Benavides dissented; Cano abstained). Legal Notice published in the Orange County Register on January 25, 2019 and notices mailed on January 24, 2019. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council not open the public hearing and direct staff to reschedule and publish notice of public hearing to a date specific. Greetings Mayor and City Council, I urge you to follow the recommendation of City Staff not to open the public hearing on Item 75E above and to direct staff to reschedule and publish notice of public hearing to a date specific. I believe this is the correct and fair action for the Council to take. I also request that the public hearing be delayed because I believe there is unnecessary confusion in the community about just what matters are on the agenda of tonight's meeting. I am concerned that some constituents may have been led to believe that the public hearing is not going to take place and that the council is not going to vote on the matter tonight. I understand that the legally required notice was published in the Orange County Register on January 25, 2019 and that notices were mailed on January 24, 2019. However, I also understand that later last week some City personnel may have provided contradictory information to members of the community that the matter would no longer be considered on the City Council agenda tonight. If the City has created confusion as to what is on the agenda tonight, I believe that, in fairness, the City is responsible for straightening it out before holding the hearing and taking the vote. Moving forward tonight on such a controversial matter without ensuring that adequate notice and opportunity to be heard has been provided to all constituents will harm the community you serve. I have spent substantial time in the past few days trying to determine what is going on tonight. Please look into this matter carefully before proceeding on the merits tonight. I am writing this letter as an individual resident and voter in Santa Ana, not as a member or representative of any organization and group. Thank you for your consideration and your service. Sincerely, Mrs. Ellen M Koldewey Santa Ana CA H Orozco, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 5:03 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main St. Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Morrissey [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 5:00 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 N. Main St. Dear Mayor Pulido and Council Members, I am a resident of West Floral Park and a local architect. I have been loosely following this development up to this point, so I would like to share an opinion and observation I have about it. I believe that a high density Housing development is good use for the property. I also believe we would be doing a disservice to surrounding community by approving a development which imposes significantly more traffic and more imposing building volumes on this neighborhood than what the current zoning could generate. The recent elevations and plans I viewed on the city web site appear to show a 5 story non tiered building extending to the Northeast very close to the homes along the east property line. This caught my attention because the revised description states that the buildings feature a tiered building height from 2-5 stories. There are also what appear to be 6 story buildings fronting Edgewood. It is my hope that you inquire with the applicant or staff about the apparent inconsistency and work with the project team a thoughtful development which will result in no detrimental impacts to the view corridors for the Santiago Park Residents, and that the Council will work with the project team to preserve the views from the neighborhood. Sent from my iPhone \5 Orozco, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 9:52 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 Main Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza l Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. -----Original Message ----- From: Lisa [ Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:51 PM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 Main Mr Mayor It's extremely disappointing that people were allowed to speak in favor of the project who are NOT residents of Santa Ana and who were also being paid by the developer to be there. Meanwhile tax payers of Santa Ana and residents that will be greatly effected by this development sat in the cold outside and not heard. And you had some council members who sat in your meeting with smiles on their faces when we are just trying to fight for our neighborhood and for what is right. �41 Orozco, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 9:52 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 project - vote no Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Office I nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. -----Original Message ----- From: Lynne Sturdivant [ Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:18 PM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 project - vote no Dear Mayor, I'm sitting in the council meeting tonight listening to the city presenter of this grossly inappropriate project. He is absolutely spinning half truths, skewing information in favor of the developer, and using pronouns of "we" during his presentation. It is my understanding the city is supposed to present in a factual, unbiased way. He did not. He heard the vote from the planning commission as a huge denial of rezoning and the project. His statements are maddening. He works for the city of Santa Ana not the developer. Or has he been paid off?? He is talking about projections. 3000+ car trips a day is significant and will impact the immediate neighborhood. He says the rules for the acceptable traffic level was set in the late 90's and that's just how it is. Well the zoning was historically set and "that'sjust how it is" Please. This project reeks of payoffs, bribes, collusion or worse. Thank you for voting no for this incredibly inappropriate and dangerous project Lynne Zwickl Park Santiago resident for 24 years Santa Ana special education teacher Sent from my iPhone lel Orozco, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 8:06 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: Request for February 19th City Council Meeting Attachments: 2019-02-08 Letter to City Council -Venue Change.pdf Kind Regards, Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant City Manager's Office nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Dale Helvig [ Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 12:36 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Reyna, Roman <RReyna@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa- ana.org> Cc: Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza @santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida <cneal@santa- ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince <VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>; 'Mark S. McLoughlin' < ; 'Alberta Christy' < Schaefer < ; 'Mike O'Valle' <movalle2000@yahoo.com> Subject: Request for February 19th City Council Meeting Dale Helvig February 8, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 811 Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: Venue Change for City Council Meeting that Will Address the 2525 Main Residential Development ,IN Many people were denied due process when they were required to wait outside during the February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting. Temperatures were in the 40 degree range, the wind was howling, debris was blowing an the audio was insufficient to adequately hear the proceedings. Elderly, handicapped and just plain cold people couldn't handle the lengthy delay in getting in and left early because of these unfavorable conditions. I respectfully request measures be taken to ensure we don't have a repeat scenario. Ideally another venue should be chosen. It is my understanding that certain formalities need to occur to select another venue. If this requires a new date be chosen, I measure should be taken now to make this happen. If that is not possible then I suggest the following: 1. Provide enough seating outside. 2. Rent portable heaters. 3. Ask at the beginning of the meeting for people to move to the center of the aisle. Many seats were unoccupied. 4. Don't allow people to have preferential seating. Walkie Ray called Cgulnick and was allowed to be escorted; Sal Tinajero allowed to come in late; David Benavides allowed to come in late; Michelle Martinez sitting in reserved staff seats. All while one of our speakers, Rob Richardson, who as you know has the same credentials, sat out in the cold for over 6 hours. 5. Schedule now for a different venue for the second reading. Can you please relay my thanks to the staff and the police force for their help and assistance. They helped in making a very bad situation a little better Respectfully, 0.A.It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) cc: citycouncil@santa-ana.ora Steven Mendoza Santa Ana Acting City Manager Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Candida Neal, Planning Manager Vince Fregoso, Principle Planner Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chair, Planning Commission Alberta Christy Chair, Historic Resources Commission Phil Schaefer, Vice Chair, Historic Resources Commission Michael O'Valle, President, Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNH) 3 Orozco, !Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 8:24 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 mains Kind Regards, Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza j Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Jeffrey Foster [ Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 7:06 AM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPena loza@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa- ana.org> Subject: 2525 mains I am eagerly waiting for my chance to speak against the development at 2525 main st. santa an ca. my name is jeffrey foster and i a have lived in park santiago for over 30 years as a homeowner. I am not against development just against inappropriate development, such as a huge apt complex next to single family homes.i will see the council on 2-19 have a great day Jeffrey Foster bil Orozco, Norma From: Bernal, Sarah Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:11 PM To: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma Subject: FW: Response to ex -Commissioner B. Mendoza Public Comment for 2525 N. Main Street Sarah Bernal P h o n e: 714-667-2732 City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92702 City Hall is closed every other Friday. Click here for dates. WA Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you From: Dale Helvig Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:09 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Reyna, Roman <RReyna@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <1Villegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa- ana.org> Cc: Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida <cneal@santa-ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince <VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>; 'Mark S. McLoughlin' < ; Bernal, Sarah <SBernal@santa-ana.org>; 'Mike O'Valle' < Subject: Response to ex -Commissioner B. Mendoza Dale Helvig Please include in public comments on 2525. Monday, February 11, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8t" Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: Key Milestones of 2525 Project '✓P 1 I feel it necessary to respond to the comments made by ex -Commissioner Beatriz Mendoza made at the February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting. She implied the 2525 Main Residential Development was unduly delayed by the Planning Commission, I respectfully disagree. Listed in Attachment 1 is a timeline I created based on City Records. Judge for yourself. Respectfully, Qk t.It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) cc: Steven Mendoza Acting Santa Ana City Manager Candida Neal, Planning Manager Vince Fregoso, Principle Planner Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chairman, Planning Commission Sarah Bernal Recording Secretary Michael C'Valle, President, Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNA) ATTACHMENT 1 TimeLine of Key Milestones of the 2525 Main Residential Development and Comments made by ex - Commissioner Beatriz Mendoza at the February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting EIR Time Line COMMENT DATE ACTION TAKEN BEATRIZ 1. August 7, 2018 Draft EIR Issued. Beatriz i August 1 2• September 10,2018 A formal request was made to Extend the Comment Period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 2525 Main Residential Development. Howeve 3. September 20, 2018 Notice of Availability & Notice of Extension of an Environmental Impact Report for the for 45 d Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031 City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34 was issued by the City. 4. October 4, 2018, DEIR review period ended. 5:00 p.m. 5• October 22, 2018 At the applicant's request, the Planning Department added an Administrative agenda Beatriz item to the October 22, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. It requested the Planning delayed Commission hold a Special Meeting on November 5, 2018, despite knowing the Final months EIR was NOT even issued. complet Commission agreed that a Special Meeting on November 5, 2018 was not warranted. 6• November 15, 2018 Public Notification Notices mailed. Final EIR released. 7• November 16, 2018 Legal noticed published in the Orange County Register. 8. November 21, 2018 1000 page copy of Final EIR delivered to at least one Planning Commissioners on the eve of Thanksgiving. 9• November 21, 2018 City Manager revises November 26th meeting to a Work Study. 10. November 26, 2018 Work Study presented to Planning Commission. MOTION was made to discuss the 2525 Main Residential Development on January 14, 2019. 11. January 14, 2019 Project presented to Planning Commission; Vote was 4-2 rejecting all aspects of project. Orozco, Norma From: Alan Fuller < Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 2:07 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main St February 11,2018 Regarding 2525 Main Street Project Response to Presentation of Minh Thai at February 5, 2018 Council Meeting The staff report of other high density projects in Santa Ana that have been approved are not relevant to 2525 Main Street because those other projects are not in a neighborhood of 1,200 single family homes as in this case. These other projects are not appropriate president. 500 apartments in Park Santiago is "not in character with the neighborhood" because of the density. Similarly, the height of the 2525 Main St project is out of character with the neighborhood of single family residences and comparison of the height to the other approved projects is meaningless for the same reason. It is not possible to shield an 8 story complex behind a few trees. Access to the project is hard to rationalize. A 496 apartment complex with parking for as many as 1,000 cars with only one point of access and that point only allowing North bound travel on Main Street is irresponsible. The on -ramps to the 5 freeway are to the south of the project, so 1,000 cars that want to use the 5 freeway, will have to make a U-turn on Main St. at Walkie Way or further up Main St.or use Memory Lane to Broadway. The Cumulative Impact section in the staff report indicates that the "MainStreet/Santa Clara/1-5 on-ramp is unsatisfactory . South bound cars, returning to the project, will have to make a U-turn at Edgewood and cross to the right hand lane to enter. In evening rush hour those lanes could already be full of North bound cars exiting the 5 Freeway. he single access and resulting congestion will surely result in many residents of 2525 Main finding it much easier to cut thm Park Santiago to the project by using Santa Clara to Santiago to Edgewood for a right turn onto Main Street. In the staff report, it is noted that the 2525 Main St development is "not in character with the neighborhood". Staff indicates this is the same problem as other high density projects, that is, high density projects do not belong in a neighborhood such as Park Santiago. It remains not in character. The Economic Analysis was for the 517 unit project, which is now 476, but the amounts have not been adjusted to reflect the reduction in size. While the analysis shows a positive impact from this project, there are 7 other high density projects with over 3,000 units that will benefit the city funds. Sunshine meetings have been held for the Main Place Mall Transformation with up to an addditional 1,900 residential units and for 2700 N. Main with 247 units. Neither of these developments have nearby homes to be impacted and appear to be a much better plan for Santa Ana to transform the Main Place mall. The Planning Commission voted not to approve the 2525 Main St development. This developer has had two of the high density projects approved where single family neighborhoods were not impacted. This parcel should be a low density housing development. Orozco, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 10:00 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 too close to the freeway for air quality and Health Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Cathy Morehead [ Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 7:15 AM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org> Subject: 2525 too close to the freeway for air quality and Health Dear Mayor and Council Members, Staff and the developer of 2525 Main Street have not provided any reference to this issue in their reports and they should have. Best regards, Cathy Morehead propimil mi the 1111"Ch 7 tiaahot tl'Cat NVOItld place tiew restl'ec2IIInA on development, Piave criticized city officials for approving °. hat then• cerin " h3ack lung lofts", How close to the freeway >r eyou? Cathy Morehead + Associates www.CathyMorehead.com Orozco, Norma From: carol slaton < Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:03 PM To: eComment Subject: Fwd: Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180 percent in major cities, says report ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: carol slaton < Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Subject: Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180 percent in major cities, says report To: <mnulido(asanta-ana.org>, <dnanaloza(Zbsanta-ana.org>, <Jvillegasna,santa-ana.org>, <ci esiasna,santa- ana<org>, <isolorio@santa-ana.org>, <vsarmiento@santa-ana.org> Please read the report cited below if you think that Millenials at the 2525 Main Development will provide less traffic. htips:Hsfcurbed.com/201 8/7/27/17622178/uber-left-cause-traffic-streets-congestion-bruce-Schaller-tnc-report (� 2/19/2019 Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180% in major cities - Curbed SF gURBEO SAN FRANCISCO NEWS TECH SAN FIR AN' ISCU rP A NS'ORTA;'ION Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180 percent in major cities, says report Riders are giving up public transit—not their cars—in favor of ride -hailing trips By Adam Brinklow I Jul 27, 2018, 12:02pm PDT Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images 3 Bruce Schaller, a transit consultant who served as deputy commissioner for traffic and planning in New York City, released a new report ("Automobility') Wednesday examining the effect of transit network companies (TNCs) like Lyft and Uber on city traffic. While Schaller's findings highlight some benefits of ride -hailing apps, including increased mobility for riders with disabilities and as a valuable supplement to public transit in areas where bus service is inadequate, "Automobility" draws unflattering conclusions for SF -based TNCs. A few of Schaller's findings: https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178tuber-lyft-cause-traffic-streetscongestion-bruce-schaller-tnc-report 1/4 2/19/2019 Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180% in major cities - Curbed SF • Ride -hailing trips are concentrated mainly in a few large cities, including SF: "Seventy percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large, densely populated metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC." These nine cities accounted for 1.2 billion rides in 2017. • Ride -hailing trips are by far more popular in SF than anywhere else: In 2017, Schaller estimates that San Franciscans took 75 million trips via hide -hailing apps. That's not only more than almost any other city, it's also the most in terms of rides per population density, some 86 rides per person. The only city with a higher TNC ride volume is New York, which clocked 159 million; however, New York is also the sole city that still prefers taxis, taking 167 million cab trips the same year. • Critically, Schaller alleges that TNCs compete with public transit, not private cars: "[Rider surveys indicate] about 6o percent of TNC users in large, dense cities would have taken public transportation, walked, biked, or not made the trip if TNCs had not been available for the trip." • The report alleges that Lyft and Uber generate more traffic congestion: "Private -ride TNC services (UberX, Lyft) put 2.8 new TNC vehicle miles on the road for each mile of personal driving removed, for an overall 18o percent increase in driving on city streets." • And TNC expansion won't fix it: The companies often argue that in the long run, if ride - hailing apps become the norm instead of personal driving, it will lead to a net decline in miles. But Schaller estimates that "Lyft's recently announced goal of 50 percent of rides being shared by 2022 would produce 2.2 TNC miles being added to city streets for each personal auto mile taken off the road." • Self -driving cars would be most useful in the form of shuttle -like group commutes: "A widely -cited travel model for Lisbon, Portugal, for example, found that traffic could increase by approximately 50 percent if travelers favored autonomous `regular taxis' that are not shared. On the other hand, the model showed a 37 percent decline in vehicle kilometers, and total elimination of congestion, under a shared -taxi scenario." Presently, TNC rides remain primarily single -passenger trips. For Schaller's full report, including his list of cited sources, check it out here. haps://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyk-cause-traffic-streetscongestion-brace-schaller-tnc-report 214 2/19/2019 Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180% in major cities - Curbed SF Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for goop In response, Zipcar CEO Robin Chase penned a CityLab op-ed pointing the finger over traffic woes at car culture, not ride -hailing apps: Cities have been congested and transit has been poorly used for years before these companies set up shop. [...1 Taxis plus ride -hailing plus carsharing account forjust 1.7 percent of miles traveled by urban dwellers, while travel by personal cars account for 86 percent. [...1 Streets are congested and too few people choose mass transit now, like last year and the year before that and the year before that. Uber spokesperson Matthew Wing told Curbed SF, "We wholeheartedly agree with several of Mr. Schaller's proposed public policies." But he called the study "fundamentally flawed in several areas," arguing that ride -hailing trips increase mobility to areas underserved by public transit like small towns. Wing also said, "2018 has already dramatically changed the nature of our service," emphasizing the company's expansion into bikes and scooters. Via email, Lyft spokesperson Campbell Matthews dubbed Schaller a "taxi cab consultant" (citing a Curbed SF story as the company's source) and touted other studies, noting, https://sf.curbed.com/2018/7/27/17622178/uber-lyft-cause-traffic-streetscongestion-bruce-schaller-tnc-report 314 2/19/2019 Lyft, Uber increase traffic 180% in major cities - Curbed SF "According to Inrix, congestion declined five percent in the Bay Area last year, even as Lyft trips increased 49 percent." A U Curbed SF Newsletter email@example.com By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and European users agree to the data transfer policy. • Automobility • Don't Blame Ride Hailing [CityLab] • Uber Acquires Bike Company [Curbed SF] • Bruce Schaller [Twitter] • How To Save SF Taxis [Curbed SF] SUBSCRIBE https://sf,curbed.com/20l8l7/27/17622178/uber-lyf-cause-traffic-streets-congestion-brace-schaller-tnc-report 4/4 gL�,19 a© 11 Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 `��,Q.��tA.1t.6wv�.W � �Zh ���B��l.f/i'1Da� �1 0250 `� a U/l16 flot fA- - n �P ate. AA� lOJ V Q m d M 9 0 O N •(n tt � m `o E M -6 o aE Q '^ 2 E D V ^ v o m Ml o � Joa00000 � c LL. LL WO IN Wwopoopdpp� E�P� O� Z yU U '' Cv N G Z L 0 LO N d M 9 0 O N •(n tt � m `o E M -6 o aE Q '^ 2 E D V ^ v o m Ml o � Joa00000 � c LL. LL WO IN Wwopoopdpp� E�P� yap. EIR No. 2018-01, DA No. 018-01, GPA No. 2018-06, AA No. 2018-10 2525 North Main Street February 5, 2019 Page 10 The agreement also includes provisions for an overcrowding management plan, live work: preference plan,! local sourcing plan, _construction management and property maintenance pians. The development agreement has been signed by the applicant indicating agreement to the terms. The agreement is not considered final until the City Council has reviewed and approved the agreement and the agreement is executed by all parties. General Plan Amendment To allow for the construction of a multi -family residential development on this parcel, a general plan amendment is required. Currently, the land use designation for this site is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which applies to areas that are predominately professional offices and/or administrative offices or areas where such development is encouraged. This project will require an amendment to the Land Use Element to amend the General Plan Land Use designation of the site to District Center (DC) with a density of 81 dwelling units per acre (reduced from 87 du/ac based on staff recommended changes) or a floor area ratio of 2.21 (Exhibit 3). The purpose for maintaining and supporting professional office areas are to increase employment opportunities for local residents, enhance the diversity of the Citys economic base, to develop mutually beneficial and supportive business clusters in the City and to support uses, that cry„ tittle to no nuisances to nearby residents or businesses. Several properties to the north and west a y,- cross a n Street are designated as PAO therefoM work to create a professional business district. Areas such as this northern gateway of the City provide a rich employment base for many esidents of the City and those in the region who work in the area. District Centers are major activity areas of the City. Currently, several areas to the northwest, northeast, south of the Santa Ana 1-5 freeway and along Main Street north of Seventeenth Street are designated as District Centers. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors and to accommodate higher density development projects. These areas are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high-rise offices, commercial and multi -family residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural and housing opportunities within close proximity to each other, close to transportation opportunities and in prime development focus areas. Residential development within these areas are allowed at a' density of up to 90 acres.. �� �f'�i IAs°�ra y . 1 F If approved, the project could support several goals and policies of the Housing Element. First, the project would be consistent with Goal 2, which encourages diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Second, the project would support Goal 4, to provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services. Further, the project would be consistent with Policy HE2.2 to create District Centers with high intensity, mixed-use urban villages and pedestrian oriented experiences. Finally, the project would be consistent with Policy HE -2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing. The project would also be consistent with goals of the Land Use 75E-10 LAND USE ELEMENT Mixed Use The Land Use Plan provides for two distinct mixed use land use designations. These designations allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed use developments, with an emphasis on linkages to a range of transportation options: • The District Center (DC) land use designation includes the major activity areas in the City. Seven areas ofthe City, totaling 646.7 acres, are designated as District Center. The intensity standard for the District Center designation ranges from a floor ratio of 1.0 to 5.0. District Centers are designed to serve as anchors to the City's commercial corridors, and to accommodate major development activity. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a mixture of high- rise office, commercial, and residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural, education, recreation, entertainment, and housing opportunities. Residential developments withinae District Centers are: allowed at a density of up to 90 units per acre whvetMeveloped as an, integral„ component of a master pla mixed use project. In Harbor Corridor, Metro East. Downtown, and Transit Village District Centers residential development intensity is based on a combination of floor area ratio and zoning overlay and/or development standards. Some District Centers serve as major retail and employment centers locally and regionally, and should include development which promotes the City as a regional activity center while creating an environment conducive to business on a regional scale. District Centers in Santa Ana include the following: • The Main Place/City Place District Center includes a regional shopping center and office complex, as well as high intensity housing and mixed-use development. • The Museum District located between the Downtown and MainPlace/City Place District Centers is proposed as a major office/cultural center which will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. The area will focus upon the expanded Bowers Museum, the Discovery Science Center and the construction of additional museums and cultural centers. The Downtown District serves as one of the County's major employment and governmental operations centers complemented with a mix of residential, commercial, and services uses to enhance its urban vibrancy. Emphasis on streets that accommodate all modes of transportation, including mass transit, pedestrian and bicyclist is key in this urban setting. k 4a Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 Z Ln N G U- 0 CL �� c c 0 0 v N c }_ * N 0 U + y 0 U v c 0 0 C � v c 00 N 01 = 00 N N (L ,•_• V N N V U c W c W � a 00 N ai l!i i i N � Q Cn a Z 4) 0 > Z N 0 > Z N 0 > Z N 0 > Q Q) Q N uj U V U U W W b L 0 0 0 b b a s y a m � = v0i vQi uQi vQi leLO(�00a)a)0) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 Z Ln N G U- 0 CL �� Orozco, Norma From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kind Regards, Houston, Nicole Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:12 AM eComment Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 FW: Spurgeon Street Residents Regarding 2525 Main Residential Development 2019-02-24 - Letter from Spurgeon Residents.pdf Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.or� 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza ISanta Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Dale Helvig [ Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:12 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org> Cc: Carvalho, Sonia R. <SCarvalho@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida <cneal@santa-ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince <VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>; 'Mark S. McLoughlin' < Subject: Spurgeon Street Residents Regarding 2525 Main Residential Development February 27, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81h Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: Letter From Spurgeon Residents Regarding 2525 Main Residential Development Attached is a letter from the Spurgeon Residents voicing their concerns and requesting the process that was voted on at the Feb. 1911h City Council Meeting be followed. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, A Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) 91 February 24, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, Sty' Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: Spurgeon Street Residents We, the undersigned, represent the eleven homes in Park Santiago that will be directly impacted by the development of 2525 N. Main St., as we share a common boundary with this project. We would like to Inform you that we are opposed to the project as presented to the City Council in the final minutes of the February 19, 2019 City Council meeting. our signatures below show that we are united in the support of the representatives of NSAPA to see that a responsible project is built in accordance with the zoning standards. We request that the City Planning Staff and the applicant work with NSAPA and the Park Santiago community (including the undersigned) in accordance with the direction given by the City Council at February 19, 2019 City CDuncil meeting. We are not interested in being approached separately nor in small subgroups by the applicant to develop separate solutions. , t, Esther G�Ilardo Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 U 3 FAIRHAVEN ELEM 4B z i ' c...... ELEM H�_ - ELEM 0 �v n " zx L � � • v r P - _ 6MNN a �E. ISPPN� . c i J z ". v- . ..••._ . NIENEA INT I oxo^�oA AN Park Santiago W E ((I, I�� SCIIooI ] PaMs HF 4 6 O O 00 00N T': vi nul o C-4 LJ • h c o o C a 70 -0 V o U a o U U C Lu W ^` W > a" W o w Z Z Z Z O O O O � W E E E E . X = "o O 7 O > OO > `>i X X_ t'n X D G G in U) _ LUU V Gl U cc W O m W E Y M c O N O O Oma\/ lG 7 l6 3 (C 3 (0 3 fC 7 lQ 3 W 3 lC 3 Q� 'a a' LO v, N W 0 0 m W O O y 4— Z Z Z Z 5. Z Z Z OO O U LL OLL O � a o z Q ����0M � a_ ' Z • H c H 2 H cc H Z lf1 N m E d m w O / Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 From: Mike Wood < Date: Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 1:25 PM Subject: my neighborhood is under siege... To: <mpulido �sahta=antro >, <Solori a��anta-apa.or¢>, <ci�lesias a>santa-ana o >, < enalozg nta-1nati,�� >, <jville a Santa-Etnno >, <rrena((�isanta-anal>, <v_s,Lrmiento..santa-ana,•org>, <nmitre c4santa-ana.or > city council, please manage / vote by fact... not by emotion. not suprizingly, the santa ana planning commission has concluded that the proposed apartment building at 2525 is too dense, too negatively impactful to this neighborhood... (park Santiago north), main street traffic, and a bevy of other most -likely -to -occur scenarios. this is obvious, you all know it.... these are the facts are you going to ignore the data? allowing rezoning is an act of greed, cowardice, and very poor / unprofessional judgement that will not be forgotten... not by my neighborhood, and many others... we have not forgotten your last selling -us -short act... when you closed the egress onto grand from fairhaven because of your incompetence and refusal to correct a mistake on the double track (its not that difficult to correct a grading mistake...) is that going to happen again here? on a much grander scale? is being responsible in your vocabulary? are you determined to turn all parts of santa ana into a slum? well? mike wood... contact is not recommended... santa clara /santiago you have a history of poor performance... please not again? ralfdoraomar to me Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 9:41 AM (1 hour ago) Dear Counci Members, Would you like a new construction which would bring 1000 more cars into or near your neighborhood? Do you want to alleviate overcrowding in Santa Ana or make Santa Ana an undesirable place to live? How about traffic congestion? How is this construction proposal help our city streets? 3 Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 To All Members of the Santa Ana City Council I am sending this email to express my angst towards developers and political individuals that refuse to listen to the will of the PEOPLE; people that will be most impacted by the negative consequences of increased traffic, the potential of increased crime, and the disruption of our quiet, established neighborhood. The elected City Council persons must agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation and with all of the individuals that will inevitably be impacted by this shell company's project ... set up by the powerful Irvine Company. Why is it that the powerful always get their way over the will of the people? Signed N Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 Santa Ana City Council Members, This development has been clouded with deception, untruths, payoffs, R questionable contributions to council members, dinners and promises ® to reward residents of Park Santiago if they would give a thumbs up R for the project. Y The developer has brought in students and others to planning and counsel meetings, claiming to support this project while reading from a K script or Wikipedia about housing shortage. These outside sources are not directly impacted by this development. These voices did not vote for you on the council, most are non Santa Ana residence, Fi without roots in Santa Ana. The council is to be the representation for K those who live within the city's boarders, such as the residences of Park Santiago. In the past, the council recognized the value of it's nostalgic neighborhoods and the treasures they have become, while doing everything possible to preserve the past of a by gone era. People move to Santa Ana neighborhoods and pay a high price for a limited supply of these old and historic homes. We choose to live in unique period homes where you know your neighbor, neighbors look out for each other, these neighborhoods actively foster gatherings and events, and we are neighbors that strives to preserves a past that has been erased from so many cities. It's conservative to say over 95% of Park Santiago residences are opposed to this project planted within our neighborhood boarders. We are not against change, there is plenty of change going on within a few blocks of Park Santiago. Change without destroying the past and preserving our neighborhood is responsible development. Rory I,- Santa Ana City Council Members, f Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 Q There are multiple reasons Park Santiago neighbors have come together along with R several surrounding Neighborhoods to oppose the 2525 Main Street project. y Many obvious ones have been brought to the cities attention through emails, letters, phone calls, council and planning meetings. Main Street will be unable to function as it is intended to be an arterial road for K transportation. The city is concerned that adding 60 cars during non peak hours at Grand and Santa R Clara due to the fact that Spring Charter School would like to add two more grades to the curriculum. This is interesting given the minute size this has compared to not only K the amount of cars 2525 Main Street project will bring but also those projects recently completed, nearing completion and some 3000 more units proposed in a two block 0 area. Which brings us to the lack of service's the city already can't provide to its existing residents. As it is there isn't adequate infrastructure, water or electricity. The negative impact Santiago Park will incur for it's size compared to the high density project planned on the Parks edge, not to mention an absurd idea floated using the park for an exit from the 2525 Main Street proposed apartment complex. Pollution, noise, trash, crime along with all the other negatives that come with high density complexes. This is the only high density project in the city that is next to, and part of a neighborhood. These are just a few reasons you have previously heard. The developer purchased this property knowing what it's existing limitations are, and now asks for major changes in zoning not conducive to the Park or the neighborhood who's boundary it is within. Rory Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 September 15, 2018 Vince Fregoso, Associate Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex (M-20) PC Box 1088 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Sent by first class mail and email Re: Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project; 2525 N. Main Street; ECH#2010021031 Dear Mr. Fregoso, This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project identified above. The comments provided below focus on the project's impacts to Aesthetics, Land Use Planning, and Transportation as well as the project Alternatives as detailed below: Aesthetics: The impact conclusions pertaining to Aesthetics are inconsistent within the DEIR. Section 1.5 of the DEIR states that "due to the project's location adjacent to Santiago Park and Edgewood Road near N. Bush Street [the project] would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City's criteria related to visual character. Thus, the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park, Edgewood Road, and N. Bush Street that would result from the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable." Table 1-1 in DEIR Section 1.7 then lists Impact AES -2 as "leas than significant". Conversely, Section 4.1 (pp. 4.1-18 and 4.1-28) states that the impact is significant and unavoidable. Correction to the Section 1.7 is required.. CEQA requires under Section 21002 that a lead agency not approve projects if there are feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a project. The DEIR identifies Mitigation Measure AES -1 to reduce the impact through the preservation of trees and extension of a wall along the eastern boundary. The project's significant impacts are due to the visual change in height, scale and setback. The DEIR fails to identify mitigation measures to specifically address these impacts. Mitigation measures which specifically address these impacts, such as increasing the setbacks, reconfiguration of thebuilding on the site or a reduction in height, should be analyzed and included. Land Use Planning: As stated on DEIR page 4.7-14, the project would have an impact if it conflictjsj with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted to the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or if the Project is inconsistent with General Plan policies." Santa Ana General Pian Policy 2.2 states that new development most be consistent with the scale, bulk, and pattern of existing development" and Policy 2.11 states that "new developments most reinforce or help establish district character." The analysis of these policies is not included in Table 4.7-2 (Consistency with Relevant General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives) and should be included as an applicable policy. Policy 2:10 "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area" is included in Table 4,7.2 of the DEIR. The statements of consistency in response to Policy 210 rely on the project's design measures and architectural treatments. However, as stated on DEIR p. 4.1-17, "The difference in scale and height, due to the project's location adjacent to the park, and limited visual setback buffer with the proposed landscaping, would result in a substantial difference in scale, height, and property setbacks that is considered significant pursuant to the City's criteria related to the visual character of the site in comparison to the park. Thus, the visual change in height, scale, and setbacks from Santiago Park would be significant and unavoidable." It is inaccurate and inconsistent to state that the project's scale results in a significant and unavoidable impact and then conversely find that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan policy that requires new developments be consistent with the scale of existing development. The DEIR must include analysis of all applicable policies including, but not limited to, Policies 2.2 and 2.11. As clearly documented In Section 4.1 of the DEIR, the analysis must conclude that the project also has a significant and unavoidable impact on Land Use Planning as it pertains to the City's General Plan policies related to scale, Transportation and Traffic: Edgewood Road, that creates the southern boundary of the project site, is a unique road In that it is classified in the City's General Plan as a local residential street, but in reality functions more like an arterial due to its direct connection to 1-5/CA-57 on-ramp. "Site Access Option C", which would provide access directly to Edgewood Drive "would generate the greatest effect because it would result in unsatisfactory queues in the westbound lane during the a.m. peak hour" (DEIR p. 4.11-30). Option C should be eliminated from consideration as it places the biggest and unnecessary burden on the local street network while Options A and B focus on placing traffic on the larger arterial streets designed and assumed to carry additional traffic. Section 4. 11.3 incorrectly excludes Edgewood Road as a local access roadway to the project site and therefore also incorrectly excludes the street from additional tables/analysis (i.e. Table 4.11-2, "fable 4.11-18, Table 4.11-22, Table 4.11-24, etc,). The DEiR should be amended to include Edgewood Road. Construction Traffic: The proposed project would be developed over an 18 -month period which includes the hauling of a large quantity of materials on and off the site during that time. 'The DEIR fails to analyze the imparts of the construction 'traffic the proposed project would have and, more specifically, the impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood, Park Santiago: The imparts of construction traffic shall be mitigated and construction traffic on Edgewood east of proposed project shall be prohibited. Although the project's impacts related to noise were found to be less than significant based on the permitted hours of construction, logic would conclude that prohibiting truck traffic in the residential neighborhoods and requiring a construction management plan that limits construction traffic to only the designated arterial roads (Le, non-residential streets such as N. Main Street) would mitigate any potential impact: Alternatives No Project Alternative This alternative compares impacts of the proposed project with re -occupation at full capacity of the existing office building. This assumption is unfounded based on the historical occupancy of the office building. My family has lived in the neighborhood on Edgewood Road since 1963, so we are very familiar with the operations of the office building since its construction. We have never observed this building to be 100% occupied and would venture to say that the parking lot was no more than 50% full at its peak operation. The analysis of the No Project Alternative should be based on the realistic historic occupancy of the building, not an unrealistic potential future occupation. The aesthetic impacts discussion concludes that the landscaping would deteriorate and improvements to existing landscape would not occur, Similar to the assumption that the office would be at full capacity, this is highly speculative. City of Santa Ana Municipal Code (Article X Property Maintenance), "protect[s] the city's neighborhoods against blighting and deteriorating influences or conditions that contribute to the downgrading of neighborhood aesthetics and property values by establishing minimum standards...". The analysts in the DEIR should assume that the City would enforce its own regulations. Reduced Alterative Under this alterative, there is a reduction in the number of residential units by 30% and would also result in increased setbacks and reduced building heights. The aesthetic impacts discussion states that under this scenario, the Reduced Project Alternative would also substantially change the scale, height, and setbacks in comparison to existing views of the project site. As stated on p, 6-7, CEQA requires the alternatives selected for comparison in the EIR shall avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts. Aesthetics was the only impact for the Proposed Project found to be Significant and Unavoidable, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the Alternatives should focus on avoiding or substantially lessening the impact to Aesthetics. The analysis in the Reduced Alternative fails to fully flesh out reasonable design alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen the impact to Aesthetics. The analysis should include a discussion of a Reduced Alternative that is lower in height and overall scale. This may be accomplished through encroachments in the setbacks compared to the existing office building but may not be as severe as the Proposed Project. To that effort, the EIR must take this into consideration and evaluate more than one way to reduce the size of the project, reconfigure the building, break up the mass of the building, consider different setback options, etc. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Regards, ? r Sara and colt Trask Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 From: Darcie L. Cancino < Date: Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM Subject: Comment Letter on Draft EIR - Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project To: <skelahe�c�sarita-arr .orc�> Dear Ms. Kelaher, Attached is my comment letter addressing concerns with the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Magnolia at the Park (now known as Addington) Multi -Family Residential Project (State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031; City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34). Copies will be sent electronically via separate email to the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance, Mayor Miguel Pulido, and Councilmember Jose Solorio. hard copy with live signature will follow to you via USPS. Thank you, Mrs. Darcie L. Cancino September 4, 2018 Submitted via email to skelaher(o).santa-ana.ora and via USPS Selena Kelaher, Associate Planner City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency PO BOX 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Re: Magnolia at the Park (now known as Addington) Multi -Family Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031 City of Santa Ana: DP No, 2017-34 Ms. Kelaher, This letter contains my comments regarding the draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Magnolia at the Park (Addington) project at 2525 N. Main Street (generally referred to hereafter as "Magnolia" or "the project'). I am a 20 -year resident of the Park Santiago neighborhood ('Park Santiago") and have lived and worked in the area since 1973. 1 am unequivocally opposed to any rezoning of the parcel located at 2525 N. Main Street from Professional Administration Office to Specific Development. The size and scale of Magnolia is unsuited for this location due to the density, height of the buildings, scale of the project, immediate adjacency to a neighborhood comprised solely of historic single-family residences, and the increase in traffic that the project will bring. Additionally, due to its close proximity to the freeway, for health and safety reasons the parcel is not appropriate for a residential development. 25525 N. Main Street must remain zoned as Professional, as it has long been. No Rezoning. No General Plan Amendment. No Apartments. Despite my unwavering objection to any rezoning of the parcel, the following comments address specific areas of concern. 3.0 Project Description 3.6 Proiect Characteristics. Construction Activities The draft EIR indicates Magnolia would be completed in a time period exceeding one year and construction activities would occur Monday through Saturday, 7:00am-8:00pm. This would be a significant disruption to the peace and quiet of adjacent homes and would result in unacceptable noise and activity levels, particularly on evenings and weekends. The proposed mitigation measure indicated in N01-3 is inadequate, considering the extremely close adjacency to single-family residences on the east side of the project. Construction activities should be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00am-5:O0pm, regardless of the outcome of this project review. Although construction noise is permissible by Santa Ana Municipal Code for the hours indicated in the EIR, the sheer size and lengthy duration of this project, and its immediate adjacency to single-family residences, warrants further restrictions on the days and hours of construction. Additionally, it is indicated that approximately 120 workers will be on site daily, which raises concerns about overflow parking into Park Santiago streets, as well as a substantial increase in through traffic, as these workers seek to find short-cuts to access the job site. Section 4.11 Transportation and Circulation indicates that an additional 2,698 daily trips are expected through and around Park Santiago. This is an astounding number. The final EIR should include a further study of parking and traffic impact during and after construction throughout Park Santiago and particularly on Bush Street, Spurgeon Street, Edgewood Road, Virginia Avenue, Grovemont Street, Larchmont Avenue, Santa Clara Avenue, Santiago Street, and Lincoln Avenue. The study should include observations of traffic violations, including the current and ongoing problem of excessive speed and failure to stop at stop signs, to name just two. Table 4.11-4: Existing Neighborhood Roadway Segment Levels of Service does not adequately address these issues, and further specific mitigation should be considered. Table 3-2: Residential Unit and Parking Level Summary The draft EIR indicates Magnolia's eight -story parking structure would include 904 parking spaces, an average of 1.8 spaces per residential unit. This is a significant underestimate of the parking spaces needed for such a mammoth and well-appointed apartment project. The description indicates that Magnolia will cater primarily to single professionals and couples. Because the rents at this luxury development will be high, it is probable that a majority of units will be occupied by groups of roommates. Thus, it is reasonable to forecast that most apartments will include 2-4 vehicles per unit. A more realistic estimate is reflected below. 73 studios units: 1 car 307 one -bedroom units: 1-2 cars 88 two-bedroom units: 1-3 cars 28 3 -bedroom units: 2-4 cars At the upper end, there will be over 1,000 vehicles at Magnolia thus the allocated parking of 904 spaces will not be sufficient to accommodate the potential number of cars and Magnolia residents will overflow into Park Santiago. This is already occurring with the much smaller scale Villa Clara apartments on Santa Clara Avenue, located just east of the railroad tracks, with overflow parking clogging Aspen Street and Larchmont Avenue. The final EIR should address this concern. The table also indicates a mere 22 spaces for visitor parking. With its resort -style upscale amenities which include concierge services, recreational courtyards, a rooftop amenity deck and fitness center, community room, club room, private dining room for large parties, wine storage, wellness center, dog park, two pools and two spas with cabanas and outdoor entertainment systems, 6,000 square foot gym, yoga and stretch studios, outdoor kitchens/barbeques, fire pits, game areas, shuffleboard courts, seating areas, tables, and trellis covered patios, Magnolia is designed for entertaining. The demographic this project is intended to attract will likely take full advantage of these amenities for frequent entertaining of guests. At the Planning Commission Study Session & Draft EIR Public Hearing held on August 27, 2018, representatives of the developer also revealed that four of Magnolia's units will be available to rent by the night. This is going to result in even more visitors, with the likelihood of large groups of overnight guests renting the units for parties and events. As an example, if even five Magnolia resident units hold a party with five guests each—a not unlikely occurrence—the planned 22 spaces would already be inadequate. On weekends and holidays, it is reasonable to presume the guest count will be significantly higher. The allocated visitor parking is insufficient to accommodate the vehicles of these extra guests, who will overflow into Park Santiago, bringing noise, trash, and disruption, as well as preventing Park Santiago residents from parking near their own homes. There is also a very realistic possibility that visitors will spill-over into Santiago Park, which would result in harm to the park setting and environment. The final EIR should study this impact and include mitigation. 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis Table 4.1 Cumulative Project List The cumulative projects shown on Table 4-1 reflects a listing of 4,961 new residential units are planned in nearby cities, plus the 496 for Magnolia, which is a total of 5,547 new housing units. This does not include the Main Place transformation project, which will add another 1,900 housing units. Further assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts, including energy needs, water resources, and traffic congestion on local streets and freeways should be included in the final EIR. For example, Southern California Edison experienced frequent and repeated power outages in our area during the heat wave in July 2018. All the cumulative housing developments raise concerns that the power company will be unable to provide reliable service to support the rapid growth expansion. Section 4.14.3 Environmental Setting Electricity - The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) indicates that "utilities are experiencing increasing demands that require modernization of the electric distribution grid ... and increase the grid's capacity" and that "SCE is in the process of implementing infrastructure upgrades to ensure the ability to meet future demands." The future demands are happening now, and the EIR does not address the drain on existing infrastructure and potential for additional outages and unreliable service during peak demand times that will be caused by Magnolia and other high density housing projects currently in development. Discounting the existing need to modernize the energy grid so it can accommodate current demand, while adding thousands of new units and residents, is irresponsible and potentially catastrophic. An additional example is based on personal observation and experience. I have worked at my present job in Tustin near the Edinger Avenue exit of the Costa Mesa (55) freeway since 2013. At that time, my evening drive home to Park Santiago would typically take me seven minutes and never more than 10 minutes via the Costa Mesa (55) freeway north to the Santa Ana (5) freeway north. This commute time has increased year over year and my 5.7 -mile evening drive home is now 20 to 40 minutes. This is directly attributable to the rapid explosion in high density housing development without correlating infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the State of California recently enacted two water rationing laws, SB 606 and AB 1668, which will require a permanent mandatory reduction in household water use beginning in 2022. The final EIR should study the impact of these new laws when contemplating development projects. The final EIR should more comprehensively assess and address the impact on limited resources from all high density housing developments in Santa Ana, as well as impacts to adjacent cities. 4.1.2 Thresholds of Significance The report indicates that a significant effect factor includes a "substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings." Magnolia would, in fact, substantially degrade the visual character of Park Santiago and its existing homes, particularly those to the immediate east and south of the project. There are no high density apartment projects of this immense scale and height in the vicinity that are directly adjacent to a neighborhood comprised solely of single-family residences. The final EIR should include a more detailed assessment of the degradation to the overall historic character of Park Santiago, and to the existing homes on Spurgeon Street, Bush Street, and Edgewood Road. 4.1.3 Environmental Setting — Project Vicinity The description of the "project vicinity" omits the pertinent fact that the site is backed immediately to the east by a well-established, historic residential neighborhood comprised solely of single-family homes with a General Plan Land Use designation of LR -7 (Low Density Residential) and a zoning designation of R-1 (Single-family residence). The final EIR should include a reference that Park Santiago neighborhood is in the project vicinity and immediately adjacent to the project in the Environmental Setting section. Additionally, a statement is made that "the assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature." Thus, the authors of the EIR must not be the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not an adverse aesthetic impact of the project. Rather, the opinions and observations of the residents of Park Santiago, who will be daily impacted by any changes to the immediate environmental setting, must be given the greatest weight and consideration. The final EIR should address Park Santiago residents' opinions of the aesthetic impact. 4.1.4 Environmental Impacts. Viewpoint D – Simulated view The representation of the westward view from Spurgeon Street is extremely misleading, as it not only minimizes the scale of the tiered five -story elevations, it includes a very mature, densely packed tree line as a screen purporting to protect the privacy of the existing single-family homes from intrusion by the imposing Magnolia buildings. In fact, it would likely take a decade or more for the trees to reach the height and density as shown in the conceptualized Viewpoint D, and the EIR indicates eight existing trees must be removed and replaced. Even when the trees eventually reach maturity, residents of Spurgeon Street and Virginia Avenue will nonetheless forever lose their privacy, as the five -story buildings—particularly those located at the north-eastern edge of the project—will still have full view into the backyards and homes. Balconies and patios are a feature of all Magnolia units and will contribute to the loss of privacy. The final EIR should include more realistic simulated views of the project immediately following completion and estimated timeframes for landscape growth, and consider the impact from patios and balconies. The final EIR should also include realistic westward simulated views of the five -story buildings at the very north-eastern tip of the project and the impact on the residences immediately to the east on Spurgeon Street and Virginia Avenue: East Elevation singto handy onsidenoos iannWel¢ly to the noel Additionally, the water needed to adequately irrigate such a massive installation of landscaping is not addressed in the report. The final EIR should address this issue, considering the prolonged state of drought in Southern California. It is a certainty that the project will result in a precipitous drop in values of the homes on Edgewood Road, Spurgeon Street, Virginia Avenue, and Bush Street and would cause substantial, irrevocable economic harm and financial loss to the homeowners. Although not strictly an "environmental" concern, the final EIR should nonetheless include an assessment of the impact to property values, considering the existing homes and the density and scale of Magnolia, because this will potentially impact the specific environment of the current residents (they may be forced to sell at a loss and relocate or will have to contend with the intrusion into their privacy by Magnolia residents, as well as the disruption caused by Magnolia's inadequate parking), This section also concedes that the project would result in a "substantial visual contrast from existing conditions," yet comes to the puzzling conclusion that it would nonetheless "have a unifying modern architectural theme." The modern urban theme of Magnolia would, in fact, be disharmonious with the historic character of Park Santiago and its single -story vintage homes and would be a stark contrast. The final EIR should address this mismatch in architectural styles and scale. Shade and Shadow Figure 4.1-13 Winter Solstice Shadows shows that Magnolia would result in the rear yards of the single- family homes immediately to the east of the project being almost entirely shaded at 3:00pm—a significant change from the current conditions reflected on Figure 4.1-3: Shade and Shadow - Existing Conditions— yet stunningly concludes there is less than significant impact. The final EIR should further study and address this disparity. Section 4.2 — Air Qualit Magnolia would be situated approximately 100 feet from the Santa Ana (5) Freeway. In 2005, the California Environmental Protection Agency - California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued handbook Air Quality and Land Use: A Community Health Perspective warning cities and counties to avoid putting new homes in high -pollution zones within 500 feet of freeways because of the well-documented link between traffic pollution and asthma, heart attacks, and other health problems including autism and learning disabilities. While the CARB has issued an updated handbook in April 2017, it stands by its position on the unhealthful affects of locating housing in close proximity to freeways; and Scott Fruin, professor of preventive medicine at USC, responded to the new guidance by maintaining that "the best current strategy to reduce near -freeway exposure is not to put schools and residences there in the first place. Even with the best reduction measures available, air pollution in these locations will remain unhealthy'." The final EIR should further study and address the CARB's warnings about the health hazards of Magnolia's immediate proximity to the freeway. 4.3.3 Environmental Setting The report lists a number of potentially impacted bird species, but did not include the California towhee, Bullock's oriole, the recovering western bluebird', or the newly identified pin -tailed whydah. Numerous sightings of these specimens have occurred in Park Santiago as recently as the date of this letter. The impact to these rare and fragile species needs to be studied and included in the final EIR. Los Angeles Times article, Regulators warned against housing near,freeways due to health risks. Now they're warming to it, December 27, 2017 2 California Bluebird Recovery Program, www.ebrp.org The report also states that coyotes are not a significant presence in the vicinity, which is not accurate. Coyotes are frequently seen in both Santiago Park and in the neighborhood. The disruption caused by the construction and occupancy of Magnolia will drive more coyotes into Park Santiago, placing residents and companion animals at increased risk. The final EIR should further study this impact. 4.4.3 Environmental Setting Park Santiago Neighborhood While it is accurately stated that some higher density, commercial use properties border a tiny portion of Park Santiago's very south perimeter, Magnolia would be a significant departure due to its residential nature, density, and massive scale and height. The conclusion that the project would have no impact to the historic character of the neighborhood is based only on a review of 33 registered historic properties, while ignoring that the vast number of Park Santiago homes were built more than half a century ago. Although the majority of Park Santiago homes are not formally registered as historic, many would qualify for historic status and they nonetheless contribute to the overall historic character and unique vintage charm of Park Santiago. There are no high density apartment projects of this scale in the vicinity that are directly adjacent to a neighborhood comprised solely of single-family residences. The final EIR should take this under consideration. 4.5.2 Environmental Impacts Table 4.5-3: Project Consistency with Santa Ana CAP asserts that Magnolia will reduce dependency on cars and time spent in traffic, and would encourage bicycle use. These assertions are not based on the realities of the vast majority of Orange County residents and workers. It is a fallacy that great numbers of people will bicycle to their jobs or use the inadequate public transit system, and there is no evidence that the project will, in fact, result in any significant increase in bicycling or use of public transportation. OCTA bus ridership is in decline and bus lines are not a convenient or efficient way to travel to and from work or other places residents must go, such as taking their children to school or running errands. And the warm climate in the region is not conducive to bicycling to work, particularly during summer heat waves. Recently, bicycle lanes were added to Grand Avenue between Fairhaven Avenue and 171h Street. I have yet to see a bicyclist utilizing these lanes as a means to commute, and have only once seen a solo recreational bicyclist. Gallup's recent How Americans Get to Work poll revealed that only 1 % of Americans bicycle to work; only 6% take mass transit; only 5% walk; but the overwhelming majority of workers, 83%, drive to work'. The final EIR should provide data based on empirical studies to support the assertions that dependency on cars will be reduced by the project, bicycling and bus ridership will increase, and that traffic congestion will decline. 4.7.2 Regulatory Setting, City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, Policy 6.1: Implement street design features that discourage through traffic on residential streets There is no indication in the draft EIR of any mitigation to discourage through traffic on Park Santiago streets. At the Planning Commission Study Session & Draft EIR Public Hearing held on August 27, 2018, representatives of the developer stated they would include a provision in Magnolia's rental agreement to prohibit tenants from using Park Santiago streets. This would obviously be an unenforceable and probably illegal provision and the developer's statement should be disregarded. The developer also stated that an outreach to Waze will be made to change the app's navigation algorithms to mitigate through traffic, but the developer is not legally obligated to do so and even if they follow through on this statement, it would be of nominal or no impact, due to Magnolia's proximity and desire of tenants to traverse Park Santiago to access the new Walmart, Target, grocery stores, gas stations, local schools, 3 Gallup, Haw Americans Get to Work, 2007-2018, dated August 31, 2018 0 and other shopping and conveniences located east. The final EIR should include concrete measures of how through traffic will be curtailed. Conservation Element Objective 1.2: Provide sufficient water of adequate quality for all users Southern California is in a continual and prolonged drought. The EIR does not address recently enacted permanent water rationing laws, SB 606 and AB 1668. The final EIR should study these laws. Energy Element Goal 1: To reduce consumption of non-renewable energy. The EIR does not discuss how a high density project of this scale reduces consumption of non-renewable energy. The final EIR should study how this will be addressed. Housing Element, Goal 2: A diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. Magnolia will target potential residents of high to moderate income levels, and its luxurious amenities are designed to attract a certain demographic. It does not include any low income housing, thus is not inclusive of lower income individuals or families. Policy HE -2. 3: Rental Housing. Encourage the construction of rental housing for Santa Ana's residents and workforce, including a commitment to very low, low, and moderate -income residents and moderate -income Santa Ana workers. Magnolia will target potential residents of high to moderate income levels, and its luxurious amenities are designed to attract a certain demographic. It does not include any very low or low income housing, thus is not inclusive of lower income individuals or families and will not contribute to a solution to the current housing affordability crisis. Land Use Element, Policy 2.10 Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area; and Policy 5.2 Protect the community from incompatible land uses. The massive scale and contemporary urban design of Magnolia is not harmonious with the historic character of Park Santiago and its single-family residences. Most of the homes were built in the 1930s through 1950s and their unique character is reflective of these time periods. The incompatibility of the project is further exacerbated by its massive scale, height, density, and immediate adjacency. Policy 1.4: Maintain at least a level of service "D" on arterial street intersections, except in major development areas. The draft EIR indicates that at least one intersection in the vicinity, Grand Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue, operates at an unacceptable LOS. The additional traffic created during the construction phase and once the project is occupied, will further degrade this and other intersections. Of utmost concern, Park Santiago is already subjected to heavy cut -through traffic, as rush hour commuters speed through the neighborhood streets from Main Street to Grand Avenue. The Waze navigation app includes Park Santiago streets as an alternate route of travel! The additional traffic, estimated at 2,896 additional daily trips, will only worsen these unacceptable dangerous conditions. The final EIR should include a further study of parking and traffic impact during and after construction throughout Park Santiago and particularly on Bush Street, Spurgeon Street, Edgewood Road, Virginia Avenue, Grovemont Street, Larchmont Avenue, Santa Clara Avenue, Santiago Street, and Lincoln Avenue. The study should include observations of the frequency of traffic violations, including the current and ongoing problem of excessive speed and failure to stop at stop signs, to name just two. Table 4.11-4: Existing Neighborhood Roadway Segment Levels of Service does not adequately address these important concerns. 4.7.6 Environmental Impacts—Zoning Code The draft EIR concludes that there would be no impact from the proposed zoning change of existing P (Professional) to SD (Specific Designation). The project would reduce the set-back from existing single - family residences immediately adjacent to the east from 50 feet to 40 feet. This minimal set-back of 40 feet would not mitigate the visual impact. Magnolia's buildings will be up to five stories at a height of nearly 66 feet, and an eight-story parking structure of 90 feet in height. While some buildings closest to the set-back would be two stories at a height of 25 feet, the bulk and massive scale would nonetheless be a significant change from the current structure. Moreover, the buildings in the north-eastern edge of Magnolia, adjacent to single family residences on Spurgeon Street as it curves to Virginia Avenue, are comprised of five stories. (See images on page 4.) The fact that there are already taller buildings further north on Main Street is immaterial to the impact of Magnolia because these buildings are commercial use and are not immediately adjacent to Park Santiago. 4.8.2 Environmental Impacts - Impact NO1-1: Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies - Construction The draft EIR does not include any measurements of the noise impact to the immediately adjacent homes on Spurgeon Street, Virginia Avenue, Bush Street, and Edgewood Road. The final EIR should include a study of construction and occupancy noise impact to these immediately adjacent residential streets. Table 4.11-4: Existing Neighborhood Roadway Segment Levels of Service and Figure 4 .11-2: Neighborhood Intersections and Roadway Segment There is no mention of the railroad crossings at Santa Clara Avenue and at 17Th Street. Metrolink and other trains can cause significant delays in east/west bound traffic on these streets. Further, a Walmart store is planning to occupy the vacant shopping center at Grand Avenue and 17`h Street. Impact from the trains and the increase in traffic generated by the new store needs to be addressed in the final EIR because of the considerable surge in daily trips through Park Santiago and on local streets, which will be above the estimated 2,698 additional daily trips. 4,11.6 Environmental Impacts The Project Description indicates three options to access Magnolia's parking garage. Option A: Access on N. Main Street Only, will have a driveway on Edgewood Road to be used for postal and commercial deliveries, and waste management trucks. The Main Street access will create a significant impediment to the flow of traffic, as cars travelling northbound on Main Street would slow to a near stop to enter the parking garage, creating more congestion on an already congested street and nearby freeway egress. Additionally, the utility driveway to be used by waste management and other utility vehicles which would run the length of the east side of the project would create significant disruption to the peace of the adjacent homes on Spurgeon Street. The final EIR should address these impacts. Option B: Santiago Park-Walkie Way and N. Main Street Project Access would provide access to Magnolia's parking garage from Santiago Park/Walkie Way. The existing signal at Walkie Way, which is currently only occasionally active, would become a significant impediment to already severely congested traffic on Main Street, particularly at morning and evening peak times. This option would also irreversibly harm Santiago Park and would degrade the quality of the park's environment. The final EIR should further study this. Option C: Edgewood Road and N. Main Street Project Access would provide access to Magnolia from Bush Street/Edgewood Road. This is not a feasible alternative, because of the detrimental impact to the LOS at the Edgewood Road and Main Street intersection. It would further harm Park Santiago by enabling and encouraging cut -through traffic by facilitating Magnolia residents' use of neighborhood streets. The draft EIR indicates that all freeways are operating at unacceptable levels, thus there is less than significant impact from Magnolia. Because a bad situation will arguably not be made into a worse situation, does not mean there is less than significant impact. The additional traffic generated by the project and other high density housing development is increasing pollution, lengthening commute times, and restricting the ability of Santa Ana residents to easily reach their destinations. 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems As indicated in the draft EIR, Senate Bills 610 and 221 each require specified water supply assessments (WSAs) for housing developments of more than 500 dwelling units. It is a troubling coincidence that Magnolia's density was reduced to remain slightly under this threshold, at 496 units. Because the size of Magnolia is only four units below the WSA threshold—and it was originally planned at 517 units—it should be subject to the study of water adequacy. The reduction in units was obviously intended to circumvent the legally -mandated and critically important water study. Additionally, the State of California recently enacted two water rationing bills, SB 606 and AB 1668, which will require a permanent mandatory reduction in household usage beginning in 2022. The final EIR should consider the impact of these new laws when contemplating Magnolia. 5.0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 5.2 Significant Irreversible Effects According to the draft EIR, Magnolia would result in existing office buildings in the vicinity being converted to high density housing, thus further increasing traffic and other adverse impacts, erosion of city aesthetics, and increase in air and noise pollution. This is more evidence that the project is unsuitable for 2525 N. Main Street. 5.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts Because Magnolia would irreversibly degrade the views and character of Park Santiago neighborhood due to its colossal height and scale, it is evident that it is ill conceived and unsuitable for 2525 N. Main Street. In conclusion, I restate my opposition to any rezoning of 2525 N. Main Street from Professional Administration Office to Specific Development, regardless of any future design changes to Magnolia. The project would have permanent and irreversible adverse impact to the quality of life for Park Santiago's approximately 4,545 residents, as well as the City of Santa Ana overall. I urge the Planning Commission and city leaders to reject this project. ➢ NO General Plan Amendment (GPA) Land Use Change from PAO (Professional & Administration Office) to a District Center (DC) designation Y DENIAL of Amendment Application (AA) for a zone change from Professional (P) to a Specific Development (SD) designation Y NO Development Agreement Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Respectfully, Mrs. Darcie L. Cancino cc: North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance Councilman Jose Solorio Mayor Miguel Pulido 10 Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 From: Betsy Iverson < Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:16 PM Subject: 2525 Main: Environmental Impact Report To: <skelaher santa-ana.gra> Hello, We have many concerns about how this project will effect the traffic in the neighborhood. We are already very congested with commuters cutting through our neighborhood. One very big concern is the traffic surrounding the 76 gas station and the entrance into the neighborhood at the Santiago Street entrance. Also, we would like to see studies of how these types of projects effect current property values. Our house is our biggest asset and we cannot afford to have our property values decline which is very much a possibility as a result of the impact of this project. Also, we don't have amenities adjacent to our neighborhood to support additional population. You already can't find parking in the Mother's Market parking lot and I'm sure this will only get worse. Parking is another huge concern. While parking will be provided at the apartment complex, there will inevitably be spillover into the neighborhood. We also have concerns about the potential for crime to rise due to non residents visiting the apartment unit and not respecting the neighborhood. Santa Ana PD is already understaffed, will there be additional officers hired and deployed to these growing neighborhoods? There is no parking for the Discovery Science Center, where will that parking go? Lastly, we want to understand how this will effect the park and adjacent trails. We have a lot of issues with the homeless as it is, what provisions will be made to alleviate or prevent additional issues or issues in general. Thank you for your consideration. Pete & Mary Iverson Park Santiago Residents V Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 From: Scott Trask < Date: March 12, 2018 at 2:17:36 PM PDT To: skelaher ,manta-ana.orq Cc: Sara Trask < Subject: 2525 North Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project Dear Ms. Kelaher, Thank you very much for your presentation at the March 1st Scoping Meeting regarding the proposed 2525 North Main residential project. My family and I are very concerned about the impact that this project will have on the safety and quiet enjoyment of our home on Our primary concern is the increased traffic that this project will cause. There are currently only four entry/exit points in our neighborhood: 1) Main Street 2) Santiago ->1 7th Street 3) Santa Clara -> Lincoln -> Santa Clara 4) Santa Clara -> Lincoln -> 17th Street These entry/exit points are already congested and additional traffic would exacerbate this problem. Main Street will become significantly more congested if 2525 North Main is added (even if there is no exit from 2525 onto Edgewood Road), especially with the addition of the other developments along Main Street north of the Discovery Science Center that are planned now and in the years to come. Our house is on the corner of Edgewood and Poinsettia, with our kitchen and dining room within 20 feet of Edgewood. Edgewood is a major artery in Park Santiago, and the addition of 2525 Main will increase the traffic, noise, and air pollution that we experience. Increased traffic through Park Santiago will also cause increased traffic along East Santa Clara Avenue. Hoover Elementary School is on Santa Clara, and additional traffic will cause congestion there. So, please consider our concerns when preparing the Environmental Impact Report Sincerely, Scott & Sara Trask �`l Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 From: Subject: EIR input re 2525 N. Main project Date: Mar 10, 2018 at 349.22 PM To: skelaher@santa-ana.org Any residential project is not suitable for this parcel. This intersection is a 6way congested and dangerous traffic intersection. To impact the flow of traffic in this vital area would be wrong. Also, to inflict this high density population and their vehicles up against a historic established quiet neighborhood would be a shame on the city of Santa Ana. Please be mindful and do not change the zoning from Professional. Marilyn Fuller Sent from y iPad IN ecomrnents c6santa-ana.org Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana February 11,2018 Regarding 2525 Main Street Project Response to Presentation of Minh Thai at February 5, 2018 Council Meeting Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 The staff report of other high density projects in Santa Ana that have been approved are not relevant to 2525 Main Street because those other projects are not in a neighborhood of 1,200 single family homes as in this case. These other projects are not appropriate president. 500 apartments in Park Santiago is "not in character with the neighborhood" because of the density. Similarly, the height of the 2525 Main St project is out of character with the neighborhood of single family residences and comparison of the height to the other approved projects is meaningless for the same reason. It is not possible to shield an 8 story complex behind a few trees. Access to the project is hard to rationalize. A 496 apartment complex with parking for as many as 1,000 cars with only one point of access and that point only allowing North bound travel on Main Street is irresponsible. The on -ramps to the 5 freeway are to the south of the project, so 1,000 cars that want to use the 5 freeway, will have to make a U-turn on Main St. at Walkie Way or further up Main St.or use Memory Lane to Broadway. The Cumulative Impact section in the staff report indicates that the "MainStreet/Santa Clara/1-5 on-ramp is unsatisfactory. South bound cars, returning to the project, will have to make a U-turn at Edgewood and cross to the right hand lane to enter. In evening rush hour those lanes could already be full of North bound cars exiting the 5 Freewu.The single access and resulting congestion will surely result in many residents of 2525 Main finding it much easier to cut thru Park Santiago to the project by using Santa Clara to Santiago to Edgewood for a right turn onto Mahn Street. In the staff report, it is noted that the 2525 Main St development is "not in character with the neighborhood". Staff indicates this is the same problem as other high density projects, that is, high density projects do not belong in a neighborhood such as Park Santiago. It remains not in character. The Economic Analysis was for the 517 unit project, which is now 476, but the amounts have not been adjusted to reflect the reduction in size. While the analysis shows a positive impact from this project, there are 7 other high density projects with over 3,000 units that will benefit the city funds. Sunshine meetings have been held for the Main Place Mall Transformation with up to an addditional 1,900 residential units and for 2700 N. Main with 247 units. Neither of these developments have nearby homes to be impacted and appear to be a much better plan for Santa Ana to transform the Main Place mall. The Planning Commission voted not to approve the 2525 Main St development. This developer has had two of the high density projects approved where single family neighborhoods were not impacted. This parcel should be a low density housing development. r5A Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 Frorn: Subject: 2525 N Main St apartment proposal Date: Oct 24, 2017 at 12:34:24 PM To: VFregoso@santa-ana.org Sir, Please be mindful of the impact of an apartment complex at the entrance to our neighborhood. The overflow parking and cut -through traffic will make our lives and property values horrible. It has always been a commercial parcel in the 40+ years I have lived here and we have endured many obstacles of traffic while Main Street was improved, but this density so close to our homes will be unnecessarily bad. Please have developer make it a high-end condo project rather than apartments with multiple car owners and not enough parking spaces. Marilyn Fuller Sent from,4 iPad \40 Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 Kristin and Giles Candy February 10"' 2019 Dear Santa Ana City Council and Planning Commission: I am a resident of Park Santiago - 2335 Oakmont Ave Thank you for the time spent in multiple Council and Planning Commission Meetings listening to public testimony. Thank you to the Planning Commission for the No vote on the 2525 N Main Project at the last meeting. This is why zoning laws and Planning Commissions exist. The correct decision was made. So far the process has worked. Again: Thank you. Note, the area of Park Santiago surrounding 2525 N Main has a population density of 2,600 people /square mile (Santa Ana Data). The Development would, using the developer's I believe underestimated numbers, have a population density of over 100,000 people per square mile (Manhattan) or a 40 X differential. Considering density differential alone it is clear this is not an appropriate development to include inside Park Santiago. Is there ANY measure on which such a disparity can be supported? I cannot see one. Park Santiago is a single family residence neighborhood containing many homes which the City of Santa Ana recognizes as historic. The currently proposed 2525 N Main development is for a contemporary, medium rise, very high density, luxury apartment complex INSIDE Park Santiago. This is the most incompatible proposed development of Park Santiago. Traffic; the currently presented traffic projection is not credible. PLEASE ask for an independent assessment, OR place someone responsible now, with published consequences, for the inaccuracy of the projections should the project proceed. Most, if not all, in Park Santiago would like to see an appropriate development of the land. Be it office space or lower density housing. A new development cannot be historic today but it can be much more compatible. Would a population density disparity of tenfold be a more reasonable point at which to consider developments inside Park Santiago, or a modern 2 storey office building? Please find a way to build a constructive, appropriate development for our City and Neighborhood at 2525 N Main. H Q,- Cliff & Pat Page I of 1 Received at City Council Meeting 2/19/2019 From: "Cliff & Pat' < � To: <skelaher@santaana.org> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 5:42 PM Attach: Response to EIR on 2525 S. Main Street Project 9-20-18.docx Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed development at 2525 N. Main Street in Santa Ana, State Clearinghouse Number 2018021031; City of Santa Ana DP No. 2017-34. We are responding to the the DEIR for the proposed development at 2525 N. Main Street in Santa Ana. Please review the attached document. We are also sending a copy in the mail in case you are unable to open our document. Thank you, Cliff and Pat Campbell 1- v 2/12/2019 September 20, 2018 Response to EIR Report RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed development at 2525 N. Main Street in Santa Ana, State Clearinghouse Number 201802103; City of Santa Ana DP No. 2017-34. Name: Cliff and Pat Campbell We would like to make the following comments regarding the above named proposed project Traffic and Circulation Our Park Santiago community will be grossly impacted from additional traffic from delivery trucks, dally trash trucks, special delivery postal trucks, Fedx/UPS trucks, tow trucks for auto repairs etc., food delivery (pizzas, groceries etc,), utility meter readers, grounds keepers and local businesses delivering advertisements not to mention the hundreds of cars that would be traveling through our Park Santiago community. With a proposed 1.8 parking spaces per unit there will be many extra cars parked in the community along with visitors on a daily basis. Where will these extra cars park? The home owners on Bush would never be able to have visitors let alone plan for a family and friends party. What about the proposed project at the Wells Fargo Bank building 2700 S. Main Street? How about the proposed transformation project for the Transformation of Main Place Mali that lists 1900 residential units? There will be more traffic from those projects also. There already is more traffic on Main Street due to the new Eleven10 apartments on Town and Country behind Party City. Our community has been dealing with more traffic for the past several years and it has to be addressed for the future of Park Santiago. Also the new residents will be using Edgewood/Santa Clara Avenue/ Santiago and lincofn Avenues to reach the following places: Gas stations: The closest gas stations are located at Santa Clara Ave and Grand Ave and Santiago and 17th. The Grand Ave stations generally are the lowest priced gasoline in Orange County. So many residents are going to frequently travel through our community to get their gas. The Santiago/17th gas station is a bit higher priced. They are not going to travel down Main Street to Chapman Avenue or over to the Main and Broadway for gas on a regular basis. The prices.are too high. Grocery stores: The closet grocery markets besides Mothers Market (too expensive for everything and they are not a full grocery store) is Stater Brothers on Santa Clara Ave and Tustin, Albertsons on 17th Street, Superior on 17th or Target which has the basic food but not a full market. To many major constraints to travel all the way down Main Street to Chapman and go to Ralphs. Too many lights and hospital/doctor offices traffic. Just imagine the traffic on a daily basis through Park Santiago. In addition we have heard that the old building on Grand and 17th is being remodeled and will be opening up as Wal-Mart and refurbish the whole center which would increase the traffic in our community. Obviously there would be residents coming from the surrounding community that will take a "shortcut" to the Wal-Mart Shopping center through our Park Santiago community. The traffic on Lincoln Avenue would increase since many of the residents will use this as a short cut to go to work etc. Who wouldn't want to bypass all the traffic on Main Street and 17th? it is a nightmare! Also within a short period of time the new residents will learn about the surrounding area and frequent places such as McDonalds, IHOP, Target, Walgreens, Starbucks, Big Lots, Hobby Lobby, Ace Hardware, car wash, cleaners etc. and how will they get there... travel through Park Santiago and return the same way. The traffic on 17th Street is quite busy during the rush hour. Physician Offices: There are many medical offices on 17th Street, Tustin Avenue and 4th Street. The most convenient way would be to travel through the Park Santiago community. Of course a person could travel down Memory Lane to the 22 Freeway and exit on Tustin but on the return trip a high percentage of the residents would choose to go through Park Santiago on Santa Clara Avenue to Bush then turn left on Edgewood then right on Main Street to return home. When the 5 Freeway going North is congested the residents will use the 17th street exit to save time and travel through Park Santiago on Santiago/Edgewood to go home instead of using the Main Street exit. We already have enough traffic there due to the extra parking along side of Guarantee Chevrolet from the residents that live in apartments on 17th Street and the freeway exit. It is just too much for our community to handle. We already have many cars traveling south on Main and the driver gets confused about where to enter the 5 freeway so they make a mistake and turn left off of Main Street onto Edgewood and try to figure out what happened. Of course they are in a hurry and sometimes this create lots of congestion just trying to turn around. We have seen where this has created an unsafe driving situation. Also the residents traveling south on Main will be doing U-turns at the Edgewood left turn signal to enter the complex going north on Main. The left hand turn lane is short and only has room for a few cars. The traffic on Main South will be ridiculous which will make many of the residents go around to Grand Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue and come through Park Santiago. We know this will happen because we as home owners do this to save time ourselves. What about Hoover School? Obviously the new residents will include children and they will be either walk or be dropped off at school adding more traffic by the school. We already have school buses and additional traffic for child pick up since part of the students are bused in from other areas. Make note: We do not want to see a traffic signal at Santiago and Santa Clara like there is at the railroad tracks on Lincoln and Santa Clara. Land Use Consistency: The project site is currently zoned as Professional and Office (PAO). The proposed project is not consistent with the current zoning. This is highly significant. The proposed change in zoning should be rejected by the City, as zoning should not change to accommodate what a developer wishes to build. The existing PAO zoning provides an opportunity for residents to secure professional jobs with salaries that allow residents to afford housing in Santa Ana and adjacent Referring to Section 4.7, Land Use Planning, Table 4.7-1 SCAG RTP, last row. The proposed project is not consistent with protecting stable existing single family areas. The proposed project puts a density of 84 dwelling units per acre (DUA)adjacent to the single family Park Santiago neighborhood with a density of 7 DUA. The increase of 12 times the density is not consistent with protecting the Park Santiago neighborhood. Can this project really be considered an improvement to'the quality of life? Of course not! Noise and Air Quality The community would be affected by the additional noise from all of the traffic listed above. Car alarms going off at all hours. Delivery trucks, UPS etc. The community would be affected by the gas emissions from all the vehicles traveling into the area. The use of BWs would affect the home owners that are backed up to the proposed project. Just imagine what it would be like to have all of those smells migrating into your backyard. It would not be like your typical weekday/weekend with one or two of your neighbors using a BBQ. Water & Sewe Do we have enough water available in Santa Ana to accommodate this project? We are already ona schedule to lower our usage. Will this project affect the overall rates? What about the new plans for the Mainpiace Mall transformation and also for the 2700 Main Street project? How much water will be needed for all of the residents, stores, restaurants etc.? We are very concerned for our whole community. We feel our elected officials and city planners have a moral and civic responsibility to make our city better, not continue to approve developments knowing it will make quality of life decline for the current residents in Park Santiago and surrounding communities. They need to continue to protect our stable, existing single-family community. The proposed project has no net benefit on our neighborhoods, and does not enhance quality of life of current residents of Park Santiago and our adjacent neighborhoods. Sincerely,