HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75E75E
City Council Meeting Correspondence
2/5/2019
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
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
1 2/112019
Pamela Sapetto on behalf
OCBC
Yes
of Alicia Berhow
2 2/1/2019
Pamela Sapetto on behalf
Building Industry Association
Yes
of Steven LaMotte
3 2/1/2019
Ursula Martinez on behalf
UUNA
Yes
ofAdrain Esparza
4 2/1/2019
Toyer Great on behalf of
Lozeau Drury
Yes
Richard Drury
5 2/4/2019
Thomas Ruiz of behalf of
UUNA
Yes
Jon Preciado
6 2/5/2019
Tim Johnson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
7 2/5/2019
Cassius Rutherford
Associated Students of the
Yes
University of California Irvine
8 2/5/2019
Jeanette Wood
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
2 1/21/2019 Gil Wilksen and Terry Yes
Wilksen
"RA - Recommended Action
Friday, March 01, 2019 Page 1 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA,*
2
1112912018
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
2/512019
Cathy Morehead
Yes
7
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
8
2/5/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
8
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller on behalf of
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Marilyn Fuller
9
2/5/2019
Christine Denny-Helvig
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
9
1/29/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
10
1/29/2019
Tim Rush
Yes
10
21512019
Gary Thomas
Yes
*RA - Recommended
Action
Friday,
March 01, 2019
Page 2 of 1.2
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
1.1
1/30/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
11
2/5/2019
Mark Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
12
2/5/2019
Susan Burroughs
Yes
12
2/4/2019
Brennan Roach
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
13
2/5/2019
Stephen and Judy Swytak
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
13
2/412019
Tim Rush
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
1.4
2/5/2019
Ellen Koldeway
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
14
2/5/2019
Dandle Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
15
2/5/2019
Dingyonsunset
Yes
15
2/5/2019
Tom Morrissey
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
16
2/5/2019
Heather Sidell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
16
2/6/2019
Lisa
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
17
2/512019
Cathy Morehead
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
17
2/6/2019
Lynne Zwickl
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
18
2/5/2019
Megan Klempa
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
18
2/8/2019
Dale Helvig
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
19
2/11/2019
Jeffery Foster
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended
Action
Friday,
March 01, 2019
Page 3 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA."
19
215/2019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
20
2/512019
Jeffrey Foster
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
20
2/11/2019
Dale Helvig
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
21
21512019
David Hestia
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
21
2111/2019
Alan Fuller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
22
21512019
Lisa Ganz
Yes
22
211512019
Cathy Morehead
Yes
23
2/1812019
Carol Slaton
Yes
23
2/5/2019
Edwin Garrido
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
24
211912019
Cathy Morehead
Yes
24
2/512019
Martin Garrido
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
25
2/512019
Gina Garrido
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
26
2/5/2019
Debora Curran
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
27
2/5/2019
Rockland Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
28
2/5/2019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
29
21512019
David Hastie
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
30
2/512019
Sherry and David Smith
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA -Recommended Action
Friday,
March 01., 2019
Page 4 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
31
215/2019
Mike Tardif
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
32
2/5/2019
Ana Linares
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
33
2/5/2019
Jane, Dave, Andrew, and
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Nathanael Minarik
34
215/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
35
21512019
Raul Duran
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
36
21512019
Lenette J. Wardinski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
37
215/2019
Carol Slaton
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
38
2/512019
Steve Wardinski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
39
215/2019
Jennie Clacken
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
40
215/2019
Jennifer Sterett
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
41.
2/512019
Erica and Edward Sharer
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
42
2/5/2019
Jaine Chapman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
43
21512019
Norma Bunge
Yes
44
2/5/2019
Robert Tiritilli
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
45
2/5/2019
Susan Hyatt
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
46
2/5/2019
Nelda Marquez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
47
2/5/2019
Charlie Andres
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended
Action
Friday,
Ndarch 01, 2019
Page 5 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
48
2/5/2019
Steve Wardin ski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
49
2/512019
Jennifer Sterett
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
50
21512019
Joim Cordiel
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
51
215/2019
Candice Vance
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
52
21512019
Brenda Call
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
53
21512019
Sherry and David Smith
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
54
2/5/2019
Andrea Harris
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
55
2/512019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
56
2/512019
Deborah Hicks
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
57
2/512019
Jun Tanega
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
58
2/512019
Jun Tanega
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
59
2/5/2019
Rocio Estrada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
60
2/512019
Miguel Ortiz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
61
215/2019
Carlos and Carmen Ortiz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
62
2/512019
Roger Allen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
63
21512019
Bill Bonnett
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
64
2/5/2019
Janet Basalone
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended
Action
Friday,
March 01, 201.9
Page 6 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
65
2/5/2019
Tim Basalone
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
66
2/5/2019
Maureen and Patricia
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Bricken
67
2/5/2019
Alexandria Gabelrnan
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
68
21512019
Carol Park
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
69
21512019
Dorine
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
70
215/2019
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
21512019
Darcie Cancino
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
74
2/512019
Giles Candy
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
75
2/5/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
76
215/2019
Kelly Medina
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
77
2/5/2019
ruthaakeller
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
78
2/512019
Claude and Maureen
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Foucault
79
2/512019
Laura Guzman
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
80
2/512019
Susan and Steven
Yes
Semotan
81
215/2019
Eric and Anita Mull
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended
Action
Friday,
March 01, 2019
Page 7 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA*
82
21512019
Tara Franklin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
83
215/2019
Carol Buck
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
84
21512019
Corinne McDonald
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
85
21512019
Alison Stanley
Yes
86
2/5/2019
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
21512019
Lenette J. Wardinski
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
90
2/512019
Fernando Posada
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
91
2/5/2019
Megan Flanagan
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
92
2/5/2019
Carol Park
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
93
2/5/2019
Pamela Angell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
94
215/2019
Carlos and Carmen Ortiz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
95
2/5/2019
Pat and Cliff Campbell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
96
2/512019
Art Mendelsohn
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
97
215/2019
Diana Espinoza
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
98
2/5/2019
Lindsay and Bonnie
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Thompson
*RA - Recommended
Action
Friday,
March 01, 2019
Page 8 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
99
2/512019
Cori McDonald
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
100
2/5/2019
Phil Schaefer
Yes
101
2/5/2019
Linda Koepsell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
102
2/5/2019
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
21512019
Andrea Schantz
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
107
21512019
Michelle 0' Valle
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
108
215/2019
Gilbert Van Der Marliere;
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
Marlene Van.Der.Marliere;
109
2/5/2019
Bill and Camillia Sornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
110
2/5/2019
Eva Sanchez Bengar
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
111
2111/2019
David Michael Lee
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
112
2/1112019
Julie Tomlinson
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
113
2/11/2019
Rhonda Wood Mojica
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
114
211112019
Roland Guaderrama
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
1.15
2/11/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Friday,
March 01, 201.9
Page 9 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
116
211112019
John Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
117
211112019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
118
2111/2019
Julie Perlin Lee
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
119
2/1312019
Tara Fidalgo Franklin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
120
2/13/2019
David Mitchell
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
121
2/14/2019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
122
211512019
Diane Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
123
211712019
Dan De Vol
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
124
2/18/2019
Denise Chaudoin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
1.25
2118/2019
Michael Plantamura
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
126
2/18/2019
Norma Bunge
Yes
127
2/1812019
Patricia Bricken
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
128
2/1812019
Carol Staten
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
129
2/1812019
Bill Bornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
130
2/18/2019
Susan Hyatt
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
131
211812019
Flor Barajas Tena
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
132
2119/2019
Daniel Ramirez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Friday,
March 01, 2019
Page 10 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
133
2/1912019
Daine Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
134
2/1912019
Lisa Caligiuri
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
135
2/19/2019
Bea Tintilli
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
136
2119/2019
Brad Romoff
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
137
2/1912019
Raquel Casey
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
138
2/19/2019
James Martin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
139
211912019
Skip Van Der Marliere
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
140
2119/2019
Ding Yon Sunset
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
141
2/1912019
Mike Wood
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
142
2119/2019
John Fradkin
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
143
2/19/2019
Camillia Sornstein
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
144
2/19/2019
Jun Tanega
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
145
2/19/2019
Adriana Alexander
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
146
2/19/2019
Julie Alexander
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
147
211912019
Carol Park
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
148
2/1912019
B. Nunez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
149
2/1912019
Shirley Mathewon
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
*RA - Recommended Action
Friday,
March 01, 2019
Page 11 of 12
*RA - Recommended Action
Friday, March 01, 2019 Page 12 of 12
Date of
Name
Representative of
In Favor In Opposition Comment
Correspondence
of RA*. of RA.*
150
2/1912019
Art Mendelsohn
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
151
211912019
Lisa Mills
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
152
2119(2019
Steven Ames
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
153
2/1912019
B. Nunez
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
154
211912019
Dorine Kethley
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
155
211912019
Joe & Sylvia Livingston
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
156
212012019
Brenda Nava
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
157
2/19/2019
Oliver Arceo
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
158
2/1912019
Kathy Hettick
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
159
2/19/2019
Irma Jauregui
Santa Ana Resident
Yes
183
TOTAL: 192
*RA - Recommended Action
Friday, March 01, 2019 Page 12 of 12
75E
Orozco, Norma
From: Pam Sapetto <
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 11:20 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh; Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena
Subject: City Council meeting February 5; Agenda item 75E
Attachments: Addington Project -Support -Santa Ana Council[2]OCBC.pdf
Please find attached a letter of support for the proposed multifamily development at 2525 N. Main which will be
discussed by City Council at their February 5th meeting under item #75E Public Hearing; FEIR, DA, GPA and Amendment
Application #2018-10.
Pamela Sapetto
Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc
www.sapettorealestate.com
ORANGE COUNTY
til..',, iIN' SS CC)UNCH
2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 1 Irvine, CA 926141 P 949.476.2242 1 F 949.476.0443 1 www.ocbc.org
January 30, 2019
The Honorable Miguel Pulido and Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 2525 N. MAIN STREET
Dear Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
Orange County Business Council (OCBC) is the region's leading voice for business and
economic issues. OCBC firmly believes that a diverse housing market is critical to the
long-term success of Orange County, including a broad spectrum of rental, for -sale and
affordable choices. Therefore, OCBC urges you to approve The Addington apartment
project.
The project's proposed residential units will reduce the housing strain throughout Santa
Ana and support the local business community. In addition, the project team has created
a design that respects the surrounding neighborhood's privacy, parking, and traffic
concerns. Furthermore, the project will bring significant fiscal benefits and services that
will help the city as a whole.
When evaluating the necessity of housing projects, it is important to remember that
housing is where jobs go to sleep. In the absence of housing, many members of the
County's talented workforce will be forced to live and/or work in neighboring counties.
Projects like the Addington apartment are critical for sustaining and driving local economic
success. Orange County Business Council asks the Santa Ana City Council to
consider the economic prosperity of this development as well as its impact on the
local workforce and approve the proposed Addington apartment community.
Sincerely,
Alicia Berhow
Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
THE LEADING VOICE OF BUSINESS IN ORANGE COUNTY
Orozco, Norma
From:
Pam Sapetto<
Sent:
Friday, February 01, 2019 1:37 PM
To:
eComment
Cc:
Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh; Neal, Candida; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena
Subject:
letter of support 2525 N Main
Attachments:
BIAOC Letter of Support - The Addington.pdf
Please find attached a letter of support for the proposed multifamily development at 2525 N. Main which will be
discussed by City Council at their February 5`" meeting under item #75E Public Hearing; FEIR, DA, GPA and Amendment
Application #2018-10.
Pamela Sapetto
Principal, Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc
www.sapettorealestate.com
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
February 5, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Proposed Development at 2525 N. Main Street, Santa Ana
Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
On behalf of our membership, I would like to state our support for the proposed
development at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana, known as The Addington.
The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter
(BIA/OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,100 member companies employing
over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. Our mission is to
champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities.
As you are aware, California's economy is facing a concerning, yet surmountable
challenge that directly impacts our workforce: housing. A serious lack of available
housing units across all income levels is preventing new and growing families from
ascending the rungs of the housing ladder. As a result, many of these talented workers
are forced, often reluctantly, to relocate out-of-state to meet their housing needs.
In an effort to support our workforce, we implore the Santa Ana City Council to
approve the proposed zoning change and development for The Addington. Since its
inception, project designers for The Addington have worked closely with community
members to gather input and address concerns. The project's 496 residential units will
help alleviate the housing strain on the Santa Ana community and support the local
business community.
When evaluating the necessity of housing projects, it is important to remember that
these projects spark economic growth and prosperity for years to come. We urge City
Council to consider the economic benefits of this development as well as its impact on
our local workforce and approve the proposed Addington apartment community.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Steven C. LaMotte
Chapter Executive Officer
PRESIDENT
RICK W OOD
TRI POINTE HOMES
VICE PRESIDENT
SUNTI KUMJIM
MBK HOMES
TREASURER/SECRETARY
ERIC NELSON
TRUMARK HOMES
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
MIKE GARTLAN
KB HOMES
TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P.
ALAN BOUDREAU
BOUDREAU PIPELINE
CORPORATION
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
MARK HIMMELSTEIN
NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP
MEMBER -AT -LARGE
PETER VANEK
FOREMOST COMPANIES
MEMBER -AT -LARGE
SEAN MATSLER
COX CASTLE & NICHOLSON, LLP
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
STEVE LA MOTTE
Orozco, Norma
From: Adrian Esparza <
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 1:44 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Adrian Esparza; Robert Ruiz; Thomas Ruiz
Subject: Attn: Mayor Pulido
Attachments: Itr to Mayor Pulido 1-31-19.pdf
Importance: High
Good afternoon Deputy Council Lujano —
Attached please find a letter or support to Mayor Pulido for Tuesdays' City Council meeting in regards to 2525
N. Main Street project.
Please confirm receipt. Thank you.
Kind Regards,
Ur ula1Es,p"b,a1Mat-"iPk
Secretary to the Business Manager
Laborers' Local 652
91
Laborers'
International
Union of
North America MUNA!
�''•S• Feel the Power
�WEMN�����
E -
IIIIIIl� LOCAL UNION 652
ADRIAN A. ESPARZA
Business Manager
Sol
January 28, 2019
ROBERT RUIZ
Secretary -Treasurer Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
JESSE SEGURA City of Santa Ana
President 20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
JOSE LUIS TIRADO
Vice -President RE: Support for Proposed Development at 2525 N. Main Street
PETER IGLESIAS Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
Recording Secretary
The Brothers and. Sisters of the Local 652, an affiliate of the Southern
RUBEN GARCIA California District Council of Laborers and the Laborers International
Sergeant at -Arms Union of North America (LiUNA!), would like to convey our robust
GABINO"Gabby"ENRIQUEZ support for the proposed Addington development at 2525 N. Main Street,
'Executive Board Member which will bring much needed housing, infrastructure and fiscal benefits
to the City of Santa Ana and its Main Street corridor.
MICHAEL R. HERNANDEZ
Executive Board Member Local 652 is proud to represent over 3,500 hardworking laborers in
Orange County who form the very backbone of Santa Ana and our
HECTOR MADRIGAL region's economy. We encourage your approval of The Addington
Auditor because it demonstrates a strong commitment to the residents and our
membership. Not only would the project be built with the assistance of
GUADALUPE FLORES our members, but it would enhance the community through the additional
Auditor housing, economic stability, and prosperity that will accompany it. This
project will undoubtedly spark revitalization in that area, and bring the
_NRIQUE"Henry" MARTINEZ tax dollars, infrastructure improvements, and growth that Santa Ana
Auditor
needs.
For the above reasons, we urge you to approve the rezoning changes and
General Plan Amendment needed to move this project forward. This
project supports the families of our membership and the families of Santa
Ana.
LOCAL OFFICE: Sinterely,
Bus ness Manager
AAE/uem
OPEIU #537
Laborers' International Union of North America
Orozco, Norma
From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 2:26 PM
To: Orozco, Norma
Subject: FW: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka
Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017- 34
Attachments: 2019.02.01.Magnolia Support Letter3.pdf; ATT00001.htm
From: Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 2:20 PM
To: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida <cneal@santa-ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince
<VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Bernal, Sarah <SBernal@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>;
Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com; Storck, Lisa <LStorcl<@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Fwd: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH
2018021031, DP No. 2017- 34
FYI and for the hearing.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Toyer Great <
Date: February 1, 2019 at 1:56:01 PM PST
To: <rnpulido(a santa-ana.org>,<citycouncil cgan
santa-a.org>, <mthai cr,santa-ana.orQ>,
<r og dinez@a,santa-ana.org>, <skelaherna-,santa-ana.org>
Ce: "Drury, Richard" < , Komalpreet Toor
<
Subject: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka
Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017- 34
Mayor Pulido and Honorable Members of the City Council, Ms. Thai, Mr. Godinez
and Ms. Kelaher,
Attached please find correspondence written on behalf of the Laborers International
Union of North America, Local Union No. 652 and its members living in and near the
City of Santa Ana ("LIUNA").
Please note, hard copies will follow by overnight mail. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Toyer Grear
Office Manager / Paralegal
nCit�3�dtR!r 7aaudrury us7,ri
Via Email and Overnight Delivery
February 1, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council Minh Thai, Executive Director
City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza Planning and Building Agency I M20
Santa Ana, CA 92702 20 Civic Center Plaza
mpulidoa.santa-ana.oLq Santa Ana, CA 92702
citycouncil@santa-ana.org mthaji santa-ana.org
Raul Godinez, City Manager
City of Santa Ana
City Manager's Office
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
rgodinezna santa-ana.org
Planning Commission
c/o Selena Kelaher, AICD
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency I M20
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
skelaherAsanta-ana.org
Re: LIUNA Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential
Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH 2018021031, DP No. 2017-
34
Mayor Pulido and Honorable Members of the City Council, Ms. Thai, Mr. Godinez
and Ms. Kelaher:
I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America,
Local Union No. 652 and its members living in and near the City of Santa Ana
("LIUNA"), to provide our wholehearted SUPPORT for the Project known as 2525 N.
Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH
2018021031, DP No. 2017-34, including all actions related or referring to the
proposed project that would demolish the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-
story office building and 442 space surface parking lot to redevelop the 5.93 -acre
site with 405,290 square feet of residential buildings that would provide 496 multi-
February 1, 2019
Support for 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project (aka Magnolia at the Park) SCH
2018021031, DP No. 2017-34
page 2
family residential units located at 2525 North (N.) Main Street, in the northern portion
of the City of Santa Ana approximately 500 feet east of Interstate 5 (1-5) ("Project').
LIUNA submitted extensive comments on the Project. We are pleased that
the Project proponent has taken our concerns seriously and has agreed to take the
following actions to address our concerns:
A. All construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) devices certified by the Air Resources Board (ARB).
Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve
emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as
defined by ARB regulations.
B. All wood materials for cabinets, doors and flooring shall be made either of
solid wood, or if composite wood materials are used (e.g. plywood,
medium density fiberboard, particleboard), such composite wood materials
for all interior finish systems shall be made with CARB approved no -added
formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultralow emitting formaldehyde (ULEF)
resins (GARB, 2009), unless such materials are not readily available in the
local market, in which case Applicant may use CARB Phase 2 certified
products.
With these measures, LIUNA enthusiastically supports the Project, and
withdraws its appeal of the CEQA documents. LIUNA believes that the Project will
provide much-needed housing for the community, will provide high-quality jobs, and
will mitigate environmental impacts to the full extent feasible. LIUNA urges the City
Council to APPROVE the Magnolia Project.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Orozco, Norma
From: Thomas Ruiz <
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 8:36 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Fwd: FW: Support Ltr. Proposed Development at 2525 Main St.
Attachments: Ltr-support Develop. 2525 Main St..pdf
Good morning,
On behalf of the Laborers International Union Southern California District Council and affiliates, representing
over 30,000 skilled construction craft laborers, we submit a letter of support for The Addington - 2525 North
Main St project.
wT
Labor Representative
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional
Organizing Coalition
5
1
LLS
February 1, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido and Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Support for Proposed Development at 2525 N. Main Street
Dear Honorable Mayor Pullclo and Council Members,
The Southern California District Council of Laborers, an affiliate of the Laborers
International Union of North America (LiUNAI), would like to convey our robust
TY support for the proposed Addington development at 2525 N. Main Street, which will
bring much needed housing, infrastructure and fiscal benefits to the City of Santa Ana
and its Main Street corridor.
ZIAL The SCDCL, made up of (12) affiliated Local Unions (including Laborers Local 652 in
Santa Ana, California) is proud to represent over 30,000 hardworking Laborers in
Southern California; many of whom live in Santa Ana and the greater Orange County
I 1 0 area. These men and women form the very backbone of Santa Ana and our region's
Es economy. We encourage your approval of The Addington because it demonstrates a
strong commitment to the residents and our membership. Not only would the project
be built with the assistance of our members, but it would enhance the community
through the additional housing, economic stability, and prosperity that will accompany
it. This project will undoubtedly spark revitalization in that area, and bring the tax
dollars, infrastructure improvements, and growth that Santa Ana needs.
DUNTY For the above reasons, we urge you to approve the rezoning changes and General Plan
MTY Amendment needed to move this project forward. This project supports the families of
our membership and the families of Santa Ana.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
COUNCIL_RERS
10
Jon P. Precado
Business Manager
Feel the Power
ORG MUNA1.
.114 S-01 -
Orozco, Norma
From: Tim Johnson <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:28 PM
To: eComment; Solorio, Jose; Pulido, Miguel; Iglesias, Cecilia; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento,
Vicente; Penaloza, David; Reyna, Roman
Subject: Agenda Item 75E: 2525 N Main Street
Please find below comments previously submitted regarding the proposed development at 2525 N. Main
Street. I do not want to reiterate everything below, but please know that I am supportive of this project and
know that others in the city are also. I live North of 17th Street just like so many others who will likely speak in
opposition to this project.
This project will provide financial benefits to the city as a whole, community benefits to our area of the city,
provide financial support for the schools, provide construction jobs for our laborers, and also provide much
needed housing stock for our current and future residents.
This proposed development, according to the traffic report, will also create less traffic than the currently zoned
alternative office building which could be built on that parcel. Yes, there are trade offs for these benefits which
you need to weigh. For example, there may be a change of aesthetics and site lines. However, our city needs to
evolve and develop responsbily the available land we have in order for the benefit of the entire city. Thanks for
your dedication to our city.
Dear Planning Commission, Mayor, City Councilmembers, and Select Planning Department Staff ... I am writing you today
in order to provide my perspective and support for the proposed development at 2525 N. Main Street. I am attaching
below my correspondence previously submitted on November 26'. Not all of you may have seen this due to the
election and changes on the, commission, so I am including for additional information. I have lived in Northern part of
Santa Ana for about 13 years now and am about 1 mile away from the development site and drive by 2525 quite
often. We own our home and rooted in the community and truly want is best for our neighborhood, community, and
the City as a whole.
Overall, I believe that the City of Santa Ana can and will benefit from this project. The City needs to evolve and property
development should be part of that evolution. We have far too many underutilized parcels that are not generating the
property tax revenue that our city needs. Having a vibrant North Main Street is also a benefit for our community. I
understand that change can be hard to accept and that the unknown may be scary especially for those with
preconceived negative notions about traffic, occupants of mult-family homes, nature of young folks, etc... In order to
move our city forward, we need to find additional revenue sources and attract residents of all housing types including
high amenity market rate apartments especially when those market rate apartments are not gentrifying existing areas
(i.e. displacing existing residents in a different economic housing position).
The financial benefits of this project are substantial and should not be overlooked or passed upon:
• General Fund: This project will provide almost $1M per year in additional net available funds ($33.5M in
revenue less $10M in expenditures) over a 25 year period. The city needs additional revenue sources and
development of undertuiltized parcels needs to be part of the plan. I pray that our city council and city staff
utilize these additional funds responsibly.
Low Income Housing: Provision of over $6M of in -lieu fees. This will not solve our low income and homeless
housing issues but it certainly will help.
• Santiago Park: The additional $1.4M allocated to the park for improvements will otherwise likely not
happen without this development (or one of similar nature).
N
I am glad that the developer has made changes to the project. The Planning Department's suggested changes, which I
presume the developer finds acceptable, seems to also be moves in the right direction which hopefully will help garner
support although I doubt that it will to the "no apartment" supporters. The changes that I have seen, which I find
substantial, from the time that I attended the Sunshine Ordinance (at which time I was originally opposed to the project)
through now include:
• Decreased number of units (density and bulk)
• Change of entrance away from Edgewood
• Terraced structure on the backside of the property adjacent to Park Santiago neighborhood (2 stories at the
back)
• Providing of security patrol for the surrounding neighbors and park
• Funding for improvements at Santiago Park
• Increased parking ratios
• Raising the height of the wall to adjacent single family neighbors
• Inclusion of a Public Art project
• Providing of $1.4M to improve Santiago Park
• Inclusion of Amazon Lockers for the surrounding neighbors
• Providing funds for Park Santiago neighbors to apply for historic district designation
The alternative use of the property which presumably would be to remain a professional office building designation
likely with a 3 story building (dropped down to 2 sotry in the back although the way the parcels are drawn this may not
be 100% required by a savy developer) will bring more traffic to our area of the city and likely will not provide the
additional community benefits (public art, Edgewood entrance or lack therof, neighborhood security, park
improvements, etc...). Overall, I believe that this project may be better off than the reasonable alternative.
Lastly, the city's own planning department who are trained in these matters support the project. There are also other
neighbors in the community who support it but will not speak up because they believe that their neighbors will not look
kindly upon them which is unfortunate in our great community. Again, I support this project and hope that after
listening to all stakeholders in the community, reviewing the EIR, reviewing the staff reports, and also considering the
city as a whole and not just one area, that you will support it also.
Thank you for your service to the residents of Santa Ana.
Here is my prior email from November 26th:
Dear Planning Commission through ecomments, Councilmembers, Mayor, Selena Kelaher, Candida Neal and Minh
Neal ... I am writing you this email to express my thoughts on the 2525 N. Main development. I am unable to attend the
Planning Commission's meeting on November 26th but I am hopeful that you will have an opportunity to read this email
and consider it as part of your planning session tonight. I also hope that you closely consider the thoughts, needs, and
desires of the surrounding community, EIR, the Planning Department Staff, and the Developer as well as the needs of
the City of Santa Ana as whole.
As you know, there is a fair amount of public opposition to this project. I for one was previously very opposed to this
project. However, the more that I learn about it and also the needs of our city, the more I become in favor it. I am not
alone in this thought process. Even though the most vocal crowd will be opposed, rest assured that there are a fair
number of residents in the area who are in favor of this type of development for a variety of reasons. There are some
that are even afraid to speak up because they do not want to be viewed as not being neighborly or they once opposed it
and now are neutral or even in support of it when weighing the alternatives. The North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance
(NSAPA) does not speak for everyone in our end of town.
would like to address what I believe to be the main opposition:
The Developer Is Not Listening to Us!
You will likely hear folks say that the Developer is not listening to NSAPA. This is simply not true. Yes, it is still a
residential development, which they are opposed to, however the Developer has made significant changes to the
project based upon community feedback during council meetings, neighborhood meetings, direct discussions,
etc... Some of these changes may be considered minor while others are quite extensive and likely changed the
economics of the project for the Developer. For example:
• There is no longer an egress on Edgewood which will significantly reduce cut through traffic. This looks to
have been in response to the community concern about cut through traffic in PS. Now for a resident of 2525 to
leave through PS, it will not be an easy way to go but requiring at least one U -Turn and a left turn and the traffic
lights associated with such.
• They increased the set back against the back wall. This is not required by code by the way. This was in
response to the community being concerned about the project being too close to residential back yards.
• They are doing a "stair step" on the levels in the back of the project- from 3 to 4 to 5 stories. Again, this
appears to have been in response to the community being concerned about the project looking into their
backyards.
• They changed the look of the project. This was in response to folks not liking the original concept
drawings. They also offered to meet with NSAPA members if the current look of the project was not
acceptable. It is my belief that this type of meeting did not take place.
• They have reduced the density.
• They have increased the parking ratio above industry norms and increased the ratio as they have decreased
density. They have also removed general pedestrian access on Edgewood I believe. These are in direct response
to concerns of overflow parking into PS especially the no pedestrian access. Most folks will not want to park in
PS because of the distance they will need to walk to get to their apartment because there is no access on
Edgewood.
• They are providing security patrol for PSNA. This appears to have been in response to concerns about crime
in the area.
• They are trying to be a good neighbor by sharing. They are providing an Amazon Locker area solely for
PSNA. They are also allowing PS residents to utilize the amenities of the project.
• They are providing significant funding to the park (Park Santiago)... this is huge in my opinion. It is
something that
Building Usage
Unfortunately, I think that a lot of folks do not realize that the project site is currently zoned for a 3 story office project
with 3 stories of parking (likely 4 with one sub-terranean). The reality of the situation is that the site should not remain
underutilized. It will not remain a small footprint 2 story building with a massive amount of surface parking- that is not
feasible nor should the city want it. I personally believe that a 3 -story building, which likely will be around 387K square
feet, can have even more of a detrimental effect when compared to the current alternative for 2525.
I believe that most folks who are opposed to the development and using items such as traffic, parking, visual look,
etc ... as reasons to be opposed are comparing it to the existing state for that parcel which is a small underutilized (or
even unutilized) office space with a vast amount of surface parking. It is not good for the fiscal impact to the city. It is
not good for the surrounding businesses and it very well may not be the best for the surrounding residents.
The No Project/No Build alternative in the EIR, although an alternative, simply is not a realistic alternative and it will also
deprive the city of some benefits. By not developing the property to its highest and best use, the city will lose out on
valuable property taxes. The amount of money that this project could provide to the city will be substantial in both
recurring property taxes and also one-time fees. The funds will not only help with annual general fund obligations but
also with our housing crisis in the city- both low income and market rate. The low income fees that they will have to pay
is tremendous and can certainly be put to good use by the city.
Although the project cannot and should not be viewed in an economic bubble, the revenue side certainly has to be of
high importance especially considering the fiscal crisis we are in at a time when the economy is supposedly doing
relatively well. The amount of money that a developer would need to invest in rehabbing the current property simply is
not a realistic use of their capital when compared to the annual cash flow potentially provided. A reasonable investor
will strive to increase cash flow and the current building would not provide that return.
The North end of Santa Ana is a great community. We desire strong businesses to be located here. We desire to have a
nice grocery store like a Trader Joe's. If we desire those things, unfortunately, it can be said that additional high income
residents will strengthen the case for a grocery store like a Trader Joe's to consider the area. I personally would not like
it at that location simply because of the traffic generation but there certainly are other areas that could possibly support
it.
Key Comparisons- 2525 vs Current Zoning
When comparing the current proposed housing development versus the existing zoning of a 3 -story office building, it is
important to consider the following:
• Traffic- An office building of this size will produce more traffic than the 2525 proposal. If traffic is a concern
of the opposition, then they should not be in favor of the current zoning but instead be in favor of something
else. A 3 -story office building as allowed under the current zoning simply has the potential to be much worse for
our community traffic -wise as compared to a residential alternative. Certainly, the residential proposal may
generate more traffic during off-peak times such as late night and weekends but that is not when traffic is
bad/worst on Main Street ... it is bad during peak commute times which is where a residential development has a
better traffic impact as compared to the existing office use.
• Traffic Flow- An office building will not have just one entrance on Main. Instead, it will have its entrance on
Edgewood as is currently provided for. They may be able to add a secondary entrance on Main, however since
the entrance is already on Edgewood, a developer of the property as an office building can keep it there. This
appears to be worse for the Park Santiago neighborhood and the resulting cut through traffic. Not to mention
that those travelling North on 1-5 will simply exit 17th Street and cut all the way through Park Santiago making a
morning commute even worse with cut through traffic. With the current Main Street only exit/entrance, the cut
through traffic, although likely not eliminated, should be significantly less than the existing proposal.
• Parking- An office building of this size will likely provide enough parking for tenants and guests. However,
this size of a building will also often have paid parking. This means that some guests and even some tenants
may be tempted to save the parking fees and park in the residential area. Overflow parking is a concern of the
neighbors but it should also be a concern under the existing allowed zoning. With the residential usage, there
seems to be ample parking with the new proposal (2 spots per unit) whereas with an office usage there will be
an economic advantage by parking in the Park Santiago streets because they will be able to save parking money.
• Green Space- We all love green space. I believe that the current housing development proposal would
provide for more overall green space. Now, it will not necessarily be public greenspace, but it will be good for
the environment and since the Park Santiago residents may be able to use it, it may also be good for them in
certain instances. Currently, the property is a dilapidated and underutilized office building and a surface parking
lot- a lot of asphalt. A new development will certainly bring more greenspace to the corner lot.
Low Income Housing Fees- We have a lot of concern about housing the homeless and otherwise our city's
homeless problems in our area town. An office redevelopment will not provide the in -lieu of fees associated
with a multi -family residential development. These fees, which likely will exceed $6M, will help our city with our
affordable housing crisis.
Y Visual Appearance- 2525 will be situated next to a very charming and historic neighborhood and in close
proximity to others. Looks are important to neighbors. The develop has expressed his availability to discuss the
visual appearance of the project, however I do not believe that anyone from NSAPA took him up on this
offer. Additionally, will a 3 story, 387 square foot office building provide all that much of a better visual
experience as you enter Park Santiago? We also must consider that even though the setback against Spurgeon
may be larger in an office usage, they will likely have 3 stories at that setback line as opposed to the proposed 2 -
story building under the 2525 proposal
• Availability of Housing- Yes, the prices of these apartments will be high. They may be the highest in Santa
Ana. They are also in an area of town that has the highest single family residence values in the city. Our city is in
need of housing. Our city is need of all types of housing. By having more supply of housing, even premium
priced housing, we should see some relief of housing stock. Plus, it will help due to the low income housing fees
paid by the developer to provide even more housing.
• Population Density- Sure, an office building will not bring additional housing to Santa Ana on that site. We
will hear folks say that Santa Ana is already so very densely populated. Well, our end of town is an outlier in
Santa Ana. The Park Santiago neighborhood has a density of 7.19K per square mile, West Floral Park is at 6.21K
per square mile while Floral Park is at 5.85K per mile (all according to this research site:
https://statisticalatias.com/place/California/Santa-Ana/Population) . The average for Santa Ana is 12.29K per
square mile. Some neighborhoods have population density of in excess of 40K per mile (Cornerstone Village at
63.13K, 41.96K for Willard, etc ... our end of town is definitely an outlier and much less densely populated than
4
the majority of Santa Ana. If we cannot have additional housing in our part of town, how do we justify it in
other parts of town that are much more densely populated? Whether we want to admit it or not, when our
vacancy rates are as low as they are right now, which is essentially just vacant turn over time, we have a housing
issue to deal with. The entire city has a housing issue to consider. Even the areas of town that are less densely
populated should be considering how we can be part of the solution.
We need to consider that if this project is stopped, which I don't think they should, that the next one may be worse for
all parties (including the city due to residential development fees) and due to the current zoning on that property, we
may be stuck with what we can get. We have an opportunity right now to be sure that any positive changes to the
project that can be made, are considered.
Residential Property Values
There is a lot of concern about what a high density development will do for our property values. Sure, there may be e
short term decrease as those who are so opposed to living next to apartments decide to sell their homes despite the
residents of 2525 quite possibly paying more per month for their rent than our cost of ownership. However, I believe
that the residents of 2525 will be the future home buyers of our houses when we are ready to move on. If they are
willing to pay the prices proposed, they will soon be trying to buy a home- and hopefully in our great neighborhoods.
Additionally, if folks do move, which I hope that they do not, they likely will be replaced by new buyers who will pay
higher property taxes due to Prop 13 value resets to fair value. This is not a reason to approve the project but just a
silver lining in case folks do intend to move because of this project.
Conclusion
There are positives that can come about from this project if we keep an open mind when comparing it to the existing 3 -
story building zoning ... less traffic, more city revenue, more low income housing availability through development fees,
etc.... Yes, there are negatives such as a possible lack of fit with the Park Santiago neighborhood and also a change from
the current status quo of a vacant building and these need to be weighed and considered when viewing this project.
Please consider all voices and not just those that speak the loudest or in the most numbers, but also consider the entire
city. We cannot look at this in a bubble but must look at what is best for the whole city. As a resident of North Santa
Ana, I want the best not only for my current neighbors, but my fellow residents who live in a completely different part of
town and also future neighbors who do not even know they will be moving into Santa Ana in the future. I trust you will
also and as such, please consider all aspects of this project when determining the best course of action.
Thanks for your consideration.
Orozco, Norma
From: Cassius Anton Rutherford <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:32 PM
To: City Council; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Reyna,
Roman; Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia; eComment
Subject: Fwd: For Immediate Release: ASUCI Issues Strong Pro -Housing Resolution Targeting
Lawmakers
Dear Hon. Mayor Pulido & Hon. Council Members,
On behalf of over 28,000 undergraduate students at the University of California, Irvine, the Associated Students
of UCI has adopted a formal resolution urging lawmakers across Orange County to approve additional housing
types in response to the acute regional housing crisis affecting our generation.
In accordance with the Associated Students of UC Irvine's support for additional housing, we wholeheartedly
urge the Santa Ana City Council to approve several important housing projects on tonight's city council
agenda.
We urge your approval of agenda items 75A (project located at 609 North Spurgeon St.), 75B (project located at
805-904 South Minnie St.), and 75E (Project located at 2525 North Main St.). Each of these projects increases
the supply of critically important housing types needed to stem the shortage of housing for Orange County's
working families.
Please see the included release outlining ASUCI's position in addition to the broad coalition forming among
different groups to support additional housing development.
Sincerely,
Cassius Rutherford
President's Chief of Staff
Associated Students of the University of California, Irvine
www.asuci.uci.edu
6244 Student Center • Irvine, California • 92697
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Associated Students of UC Irvine <
Subject: For Immediate Release: ASUCI Issues Strong Pro -Housing Resolution Targeting Lawmakers
I
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 15, 2019
Contact: Cassius Rutherford
951 - 265 - 0461
Associated Students of UC Irvine Issue Strong
Pro -Housing Resolution Targeting Lawmakers
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2018 -- The Senate of the Associated Students of the University of
California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted on behalf of the undergraduate student body at UC Irvine to issue a
strong pro -housing resolution. ASUCI calls on local lawmakers to approve additional housing types,
in particular housing for low-income and homeless populations, walkable or transit -oriented
development, and increasing density.
ASUCI's new policy position echoes the similar pro -housing policy resolutions passed by the
Angeles Sierra Club Chapter's Orange County Conservation Committee, the Orange County Board
of Supervisors, and the Democratic Party of Orange County. ASUCI's position also aligns with the
advocacy of People for Housing Orange County, a non-profit group which has been pushing for
additional housing in municipalities across the county. Students, working families, and community
leaders from every corner of Orange County have banded together and passed strong resolutions
urging lawmakers to approve the affordable and middle class housing we need.
People of all ages and backgrounds are saying "Yes In My Backyard" to more housing to meet the
existing need and the future housing demand in response to California's housing crisis. UCI
graduates and young professionals are struggling to gain a foothold in Orange County's expensive
housing market, and we need local lawmakers to step it up. ASUCI's pro -housing policy position is
2
now the official platform of UCI's undergraduate student government issued on behalf of
nearly 28,000 undergraduate students.
"ASUCI is proud to take a strong stance in response to Orange County's housing crisis", said
Cassius Rutherford, the ASUCI President's Chief of Staff. "Students at UCI are tired of being
marginalized in Orange County's expensive housing market, where the limited supply of on -campus
housing forces commuters to travel long distances from affordable communities. Graduates and
young professionals are being pushed out of Orange County by a serious housing shortage, in
particular the limited supply of low- and moderate -income housing. We urge lawmakers at all levels
to step up and tackle our housing crisis. Residents from all walks of life will stand with you."
Supporting links:
1. ASUCI Senate Legislation R54-40: In Support of Additional Housing
2. Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Orange County Conservation Committee Housing Resolution
3. Orange County Board of Supervisors Declaration on Housing
4. Democratic Party of Orange County Resolution in Support of More Housing
5. People for Housing Orange County: Political Leaders are Stepping Up (Voice of OC)
For questions or more information, please contact the following contributors:
Annie Le, ASUCI President
(
• Cassius Rutherford, ASUCI President's Chief of Staff
(
• Kenneth Stahl, Professor & Director at Chapman Law School's Environmental Land Use and Real
Estate Law Program
(
• Elizabeth Hansburg, People for Housing Orange County Director(elizabeth@peopleforhousing.org)
3
i Raymond Hiemstra, Sierra Club Orange County Conservation Committee Chair
(
Chris Gaarder, Policy Advisor to Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do
(
This email was sent to caruther@uci.edu
why did 1 get this unsubscribe from this list, update subscription preferences
Associated Students of UC Irvine Office of the President • G244 Student Center Irvine, CA 92617 USA
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Kelaher, Selena
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:16 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: In support of 2525 Main Street
Selena Kelaher, AICP
City of Santa Ana
Planning and Building Agency I M20
20 Civic Center Plaza I Post Office Box 1988 1 Santa Ana, CA 92702
skelaher ,,santa-ana.oro I Direct Phone: (714) 667-2740
From: Lewis Wood [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 3:15 PM
To: Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Fwd: In support of 2525 Main Street
Hello Selena
Please be sure the City Council members get the letter and pies below.
Thank you
Lewis
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lewis Wood <
Subject: In support of 2525 Main Street
Date: February 5, 2019 at 2:53:35 PM PST
To: mpulidogsama-ana.ore, vsarmicmo(a,sama-ana.org, dpenalozagsanta-ana.org, "Solorio,
Jose" <JSolorio a,santa-ana.org>, ei lesias a,santa-ana.orQ, rreyna e,santa-ana.org,
j villeaasgsanta-ana.org
Cc: Jeanette Wood <
Dear City Council
My wife and I support the development known as the Addington. We believe that Santa Ana
needs to develop and create destinations just like Anaheim, Fullerton and Irvine have done. Main
Place was no accident and it is the perfect location to have a destination that is vibrant and
competes with the best. Santa Ana was on the road to creating destinations but we got hit hard
with the recession. We need to have a vision of what Main Place and surrounding community
can be. The Addington will bring needed high-end density to invigorate Main Place. Main Place
can be a competitive destination for shopping, entertainment, restaurants and businesses if we
have the vision to see what it can be.
N]
•
There are many well to do high-end residential neighborhoods in California that have adjacent
high-density development on the edges, including high-density residential. This is what makes
walkable neighborhoods are when you add in destination places for eating, entertainment and
services. We all want to be able to live in our homes and walk to near by groceries, eateries,
movies, etc. And we can make that happen. We can get out of our cars and walk right in our
neighborhoods. It will be others that will drive here from other neighborhoods. That creates
vitality. And tax base. It makes sense. And it will increase our home values.
This 2525 Main Street development should be approved because it is good for all the residents of
Santa Ana and for the City's coffers.
These photos are not Santa Ana nor should they be, but we can have a similar vision that we all
can walk to:
��B , ,, s:° �� M a
+. 41 ��+'X v'S xr 3 ''"i
g vF
AT
t t C> 3 k
��. � > � ny �$°�•V �,.�. � �� a & ar4.�� �
h
1 fta } IV ro �� •3 5N+a p s
AS
.t
111111611
d
A .']"i
Sincerely
Lewis and Jeanette Wood
Park Santiago Neighborhood
Orozco, Norma
From: marc trimble <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:27 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Addington
February 5, 2019
Mayor Miguel Polido
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council Members,
I am a proud Santa Ana resident writing to express my support for The Addington project. It's clear to me that this project will provide
our community with significant benefits in comparison to just another office building, which is currently allowed by right on that site.
Throughout this planning process, I have been impressed by the developer's willingness to seek our input and actually listen to what
we have to say. You would be hard pressed to find a developer or project that would be a better neighbor.
I realize that there is a loud chorus of Park Santiago residents that oppose this project, but I want to make clear that there are plenty of
us that support The Addington. This project brings with it upgrades to Santiago Park, free security patrols in our neighborhood, and
new funds for the City to use towards police patrols, homeless programs and other services. These important benefits make me excited
for the future of this community.
I sincerely hope you see the big picture and the improvements and benefits that The Addington will bring to the neighborhood and
City of Santa Ana as a whole. I implore you to improve this project and secure a brighter future for our residents.
Thank you,
Marc and Liz Trimble
9
75E
IN OPPOSITION
January 7, 2019
Honorable Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
PO Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
RE: 252,15 N. Main Street
Dear Chairman and Cornt-nissioners:
2019 JAN -8 P;'J -
�: t)z 4
CITY 2'-1F SANTh
With the upcoming hearing and associated decision which will impact the future of the
City of Santa Ana, its citizens and the residents of Park Santiago, I hope that you have
had the opportunity to review all the project materials and public comments and have
taken to heart the ongoing testimony at the public hearings.
As a person who has spent my career in Ian(] development (primarily residential), I have
Keen in the developer's shoes and now I am on the other side. I believe I can
professionally see both sides unbiasedly and look at the overall possible merits and
potential problems of the proposed project. I've always believed development is a
balance and I understand that this proposed project is a fine balance between
development and fees.
I am not opposed to development at this location - development which follows good
planning guidelines using honesty in analyzing the project and in the project
documentation.
In my professional opinion, this is not the case with the proposed project. There are
obvious errors and gross negligence in the methodology used in analyzing the project
and therefore, the documents produced are flawed and surely challengeable under
CEQA.
All the proposed density, the project does not fit at this location.
In order to protect the City of Santa Ana as good stewards, I urge the planning
Commission to do the following�
0 Deny the project as currently proposed by the Applicant with 84/DUA (496 units)
0 Deny the Staff Report of 81/DUA (476 units)
Request the Applicant and Staff to redesign the project to less than 38/DUA
(3010U.4waUhd be a o;or 'TeasonaWe" nuinber of DU -A's' -w—h-ich the location
can suppof"4), along with a combination of 2 and 3 stories, 3 stories orientated
Page 2
City of Santa Ana Planning Commission
.January 7, 2019
along Main Street and the north side of Santiago Park and 2 stories adjacent to
the existing single family homes along Edgewood and the eastern
boundary/Spurgeon, 25' setback along Edgewood Road, 90' setback along the
eastern property line, minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit and architecture of
Span ish/M ission/Monterey style.
Again, thank you for your ongoing service to the City of Santa Ana. I know that you will
also conclude that the correct option for this property is to reduce the density and
intensity to 30/DUA which is mud) more compatible with the existing historic single
family, primarily single -story neighborhood of Park Santiago.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
cc: Minh Thai
Selena Kelaher
Vince Fregoso
Gil and Ferry Wilksen
January 21, 2019
Mayor Miguel Pulido
Vicente Sarmiento, Councilmember
David Penaloza, Councilmember
Jose Solorio, Councilmember
Roman Reyna, Councilmember
Juan Villegas, Councilmember
Cecilia Iglesias, Councilmember
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
PO Box 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: MAGNOLIA AT THE PARK
496 UNIT, MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
2525 N. Main Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Dear Mayor and City,Councilmembers,
The following are our comments regarding the above mentioned proposed project. We are
opposed to this project in total and in the main areas as you will see in our comments.
The owners of this property are well aware of the Park Santiago residents' objections to
this project by the attendance of over 200 residents who attended the Sunshine
Meeting. However, the owners have chosen not to make any significant changes to
appease the Park Santiago residents. Our desire is to have this property remain as a
Professional & Administration Office as presently approved by the General Plan and
Zoning.
2. This project is not compatible with the adjacent existing single-family dwellings.
• A density for apartments of 84 D.U. per acre is not compatible with single-family
homes of 7 D.U. per acre.
• An 8 -story parking structure, with 3, 4 and 5 story apartment units are not
compatible with 2 stories and 1 story single-family homes.
3. There are approximately 3,600 multi family units that are built, being built and/or
proposed within a one -and -a -half -mile radius of this proposed project. Existing multi-
family units, as close as Town and County Rd., still have a high vacancy rate. There is no
need for additional multi -family rental units.
4. Consider an alternative, which may be more acceptable to the Park Santiago residents
and provide much needed low-cost housing and home ownership in the City of Santa
Ana.
• Alternative: 200 -unit condominium, 34 D.U. per acre
o Develop a 200 -unit condominium project with amenities, clubhouse,
pool, gym, children's playground etc.
o30/ea. 1 -bedroom; 110/ea. 2 -bedroom; 60/ea. 3 -bedroom.
o Build 1 & 2 story buildings, with most units above garages.
o Provide additional carports and parking as necessary.
• This alternate project would reduce traffic congestion and visual impact.
As a City Councilmember; you have been elected to serve the needs and desires of the
residents of the City of Santa Ana. Considering the negative impact of this project, please do
not approve; as it is neither beneficial for the City nor the City's residents.
Thank you for your consideration in reviewing our comments.
Regards,
Gil Wilksen
Terry Wilksen
January 22, 2019
Dear Councihnember Iglesias:
I hope this letter finds you well.
Please vote no on the 2525 Main Street development. The Planning Commission had it exactly right
when it voted against this development earlier this month. I hope you find that vote persuasive, and
for good reason.
The current professional building at 2525 Main Street serves as an important transitional buffer
between the established neighborhood of Park Santiago and Main Street. Not only is this transitional
buffer important for the neighborhood and traffic patterns, but the professional job opportunities it
provides is important for the well-being of the entire city. It is good to have good -paying office -job
locations to stay in Santa Ana for Santa Ana residents.
In support of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance (NSAPA), I oppose any rezoning and
General Plan amendment to 2525 Main Street Residential development. Please take care to keep the
zoning at 2525 Main Street as is, as it has long been.
I am one of many concerned residents for whom how you vote on this important issue is of utmost
interest, as I know that City Council members not only represent the city, but also represent their
constituents.
Rezoning or general amendment change on the 2525 Main Residential Development is not for the
common good of the city. Please vote no on the development.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adeline A. Allen
3
Orozco, Norma
From: Adeline Allen <
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 11:24 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Letter to City Council
Categories: Correspondence
Dear Members of the City Council:
Greetings, and thank you for your service for our city.
Please vote no on the 2525 Main Street Development. The Planning Commission voted against this development
earlier this month, and the Commission had it exactly right. I hope you find that vote persuasive, and for good
reason.
The current professional building at 2525 Main Street serves as an important transitional buffer between the
established neighborhood of Park Santiago and Main Street. Not only is this transitional buffer important for
the neighborhood and traffic patterns, but the professional job opportunities it provides is important for the well-
being of the entire city. It is good to have good -paying office -job locations to stay in Santa Ana for Santa Ana
residents.
In support of the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance (NSAPA), I oppose any rezoning and General Plan
amendment to 2525 Main Street Residential development. Please take care to keep the zoning at 2525 .Main Street
as is, as it has long been.
I am one of many concerned residents for whom how you vote on this important issue is of utmost interest, as I
know that City Council members not only represent the city, but also represent their constituents.
Rezoning or general amendment change on the 2525 Main Residential Development is not for the common good
of the city. Please vote no on the development.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adeline A. Allen
L'
Orozco, Norma
MOM
From:
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 6:50 PM
To: eComment
Subject: "City Council'
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "
Date: January 13, 2019 at 5:01:10 PM PST
To: ecoimnentsgsanta-ana.org
Subject: 2525 N. Main
I am opposed to the proposed development as proposed!
There should not be any housing development allowed within 50 feet of a major freeway
offramp that would impede offramp travel due to vehicles entering or exiting on busy Main St.
The proposed generation of approximately 1000 cars trying to get home at night or leaving in the
morning so close to freeway access would bottleneck not only our busy Main St travel but also
backup freeway exits and entrances at this location.
This is NOT the appropriate use for this parcel. Leave the parcel as zoned for professional/office
use.
Marilyn Fuller
Sent from my iPad
Orozco, Norma
From:
Alan Fuller <
Sent:
Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:46 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
City Council Meeting Feb 5, 2019
City Council
Regarding 2525 North Main Street, Santa Ana, Ca
Dear City Council Members:
I do not support the proposed 496 unit development at the entrance to the Park Santiago
neighborhood.
The best use for this property would be for offices and parking for the Discovery Science Museum.
Secondarily, a development like "Avery at the Grove" on Santa Clara across from Fairhaven
Cemetery would more appropriate. The Grove property is approximately the same size and will have
22 single family homes.
In objecting, the most obvious reason is the size and density of the development. Nearly 500
apartments next to a 1200 home neighborhood are excessive. If it is to be rezoned, the density
should be a maximum of 20 units per acre, not the 81 upa as proposed. A development like the
homes along Memory Lane, which are only three stories, is more appropriate.
I do not feel the traffic study adequately addresses the taking of Walkie Way for egress to the
development. The additional cars entering and leaving at Walkie Way, only 150 yards from
Edgewood and the north bound 5 freeway off ramp, will have cars backed up onto the freeway as well
as south bound cars backed up past Main Place Mall. There are only 4 access points to our
neighborhood and making Edgewood unusable would have a major negative impact.
I feel the developer has been unethical in his dealings with the city and our neighborhood. It
appeared supporting individuals were either compensated by the developer or were construction
unions only offering support for development in Santa Ana in general, not this specific project. Some
individuals are supporting this project as affordable housing, when it is specifically a luxury market
rate development.
I feel that the letter in support from the Discovery Science Museum was obtained by the developer in
exchange for his offering substantial financial support for the museum parking structure.
live in this100 year old neighborhood. It should continue to be preserved, guarded and protected.
Apartments, in a residential neighborhood, do not enhance the neighborhood, they erode it.
Apartments will bring on street parking issues, congestion and cut -through traffic.
This property should not be re -zoned by a developer that will surely sell the property if entitlements
are approved and leave the city council and the neighbors to deal with the negative issues that
develop.
(0 1
Sincerely,
Alan H Fuller
Orozco, Norma
From:
Alan Fuller <
Sent:
Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:47 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
City Council Meeting, Feb S, 2019
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Re: DER 2525 N. Main St, Santa Ana, Clearinghouse no. 2018021031,
City of Santa Ana DP No. 2017-34
I have the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report. As a 40 year
resident of Park Santiago, I have not had much experience with EIRs and their preparation. The EIR
is a very professional effort by individuals that received training, experience and compensation. My
comments are only an amateur effort and I hope you can utilize them regardless.
Section 4.7 Land Use Planning.
The proposed project is too dense to be adjacent to our neighborhood of single family homes without
any buffer zone. Park Santiago has been a stable neighborhood for over 100 years and this
proposed project would introduce profound effects that can't be remedied once it is constructed.
The property has been Professional and Office for many years. The property, as is, is well suited for
professional uses as demonstrated by redevelopments further north on Main St. as medical related
offices which offer good income for employment in the area.
The proposed project will charge rents that are beyond affordable for most families. This will lead to
occupation by multiple generations or families that will not have sufficient parking available. At other
projects by this developer, only 1 parking place is included in the basic rent, with additional spaces
costing $100 per month. The resulting financial decisions of the tenant will be to park for free in the
adjoining neighborhood which will cause the quality of life for our neighbors to deteriorate.
The proposed project is not consistent with the current zoning, but could be rezoned to residential
and allow the developer to remove the existing structure and build compatible single family homes
that are reflective of the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning for the proposed massive 500 unit
apartments is far too dense with no buffer zone from the established single family homes.
The DEIR does not recognize that the Park Santiago is a historic neighborhood with homes that are
not tract housing with many unique designs. Remodeling of homes is restricted to be compatible with
the existing neighborhood. The proposed project is not compatible with the area.
Section 4.9 Population and Housing
It appears that the proposed project does not adequately address the necessary parking. Only 1.8
parking spaces are provided and with the high rents contemplated, the actual occupancy of the units
will be high and tenants will park in the adjoining neighborhood. There is no street parking available
on Main St. so the neighboring streets will have to be used. This will detract from the quality of life for
the existing residents of Park Santiago.
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic
The traffic study does not take into account the impact of all the other projects that are approved or
proposed for the general area. The additional traffic will find its way into the Park Santiago,
specifically Edgewood and Santiago streets.
The traffic study shows that freeways are already unsatisfactory and cannot just ignore that this
project will only worsen the situation. That should not be acceptable.
Thank you,
Alan Fuller
F
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
DEIR Section 4.11
Alan Fuller <
Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:48 AM
eComment
City Council Meeting, Feb 5, 2019
Regarding the proposed high density housing development at 2525 N. Main, I am very opposed to
this being passed by your department. The traffic impact on the city and our neighborhood will be
unbelievable. To put the full time population of at least 1,000 people and at least 2,000 cars at the
apex of our neighborhood is terrible. First of all this is at a 5 — way intersection that is dangerous as
is right now. To jam up Main Street with cars trying to enter or exit so close to a freeway off ramp is
wrong . We do not want to mitigate this by having egress on Edgewood which would involve our
traffic flow. There isn't enough room to stack more than 5 cars at a time at the light on Main Street.
To ruin our city park with egress at the park entrance is not an option.
This is zoned as professional and should remain as such. The implied traffic on the EIR study is
inaccurate, as we have had professional office neighbors for 40 plus years without complaint.
Addressing points on said DEIR:
Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic.
4.11.3 Environmental Setting
1) Traffic Study Area
a) The intersections listed in Table 4.11-1 has errors and omissions. Intersection 9 listed as
Main Street/Edgewood/1-5 Ramps is two intersections that should be evaluated
individually:
i) Traveling south on Main Street, there is an intersection with Edgewood to the east
and the 1-5 N HOV lane entrance to the west. (The HOV entrance is scheduled to be
removed.)
ii) Traveling north on Main Street or on 1-5 and exiting on Main Street North is a
separate signalized intersection south of Edgewood.
b) The existing roadway segments listed in table 4.11-2 and table 4.11-4 do not include
Lawson Way, which is central to projects 6, 7, 8, and 25 on Table 4.1, as well as
providing access from 22E/Town & Country exit to Table 4.1 project 22 and this
proposed project. The cumulative impact of all these projects on Lawson Way should be
included in the DEIR.
Section 4.11.6 Environmental Impacts
1) The analysis in the DEIR does not cover the cumulative impacts of residents of projects
6,7,8,22,25 on Table 4.1, as well as the proposed project, using the Park Santiago
neighborhood as a bypass for 1-5 and/or Main Street. This is a real concern. The City has
previously had to mitigate "through traffic" in the Park Santiago neighborhood by closing
Santiago Street at the park, adding speed bumps to Santiago Street, and closing the
intersection of Lincoln and Fairhaven. The potential impact from increased trips using the
residential neighborhood in lieu of 1-5and Main Street has not been evaluated. This would
especially relate to Option C, with access from Edgewood in Park Santiago.
Submitting DEIR Comments Page 7
2) Freeway Segments. Table 4.115 shows the existing Level of Service (LOS) for all the freeway
segments in the study area as unsatisfactory, and several are also shown as unmitigatible.
The statement that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact
densification at the 1-5/Main and SR 22/Main/Town & Country is insignificant because it is
already unsatisfactory defies logic. It is analogous to rubbing salt in an open wound.
3) Table 4.11-16 Summary of Cumulative Project Trips refers to Figure 4.1 to locate the
cumulative projects. Figure 4.1 omits several projects shown in Table 4.11-16, and the
project numbering is different between the Figure 4.1 and Table 4.11-16. A revised DEIR
should be issued with a figure that locates all of the projects in table 4.11-16, and uses
consistent project numbering throughout the DEIR.
4) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections lack a
discussion of impacts to the surrounding residential streets and intersections in table 4.11-3
and 4-11-4. These impacts have the potential to be significant. The DEIR should be issued
with these impacts included.
5) The Opening Year (2040) Project Plus and Cumulative Projects (2040) sections identify
intersections and freeway segments in the study area as unsatisfactory by 2020/2040, and
state that the increase in freeway traffic due to the cumulative impact densification at the I-
5/Main and SR 22/Main/Town & Country is insignificant because it is already unsatisfactory.
Again, this is not a logical statement, and is analogous to adding vinegar to the previously
salted open wound.
6) Text on page 4.11-23 ends abruptly one-third of the way through the page, during a
discussion about freeway ramp queuing, after stating that all the Options (A,B,&C) result in
unsatisfactory queues but not significant only because there is not a standard for
significance. The next sentence starts, "However, Option", stops there, and leaves the
bottom two thirds blank. A very diligent reader finds that the text picks up with "C seven
pages later on 4.11-30, where it states something important- Option C would have the most
significant impact on freeway queues. This is a key finding about Option C, which is lost to
all but the most diligent reader due to the formatting. The DEIR should be re -issued with the
formatting corrected so that readers have the opportunity to understand and comment on
the impact of Option C.
Section 4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts concludes that the cumulative impacts are not significant,
but omits that the basis for that conclusion is that the level of service without the projects is
already unsatisfactory in 2020 and 2040. This is an illogical conclusion. Bad traffic can most
certainly be made worse. Professional Planners and elected officials have a responsibility to
make our cities better, not to continue to approve development knowing it will make quality of
life worse for the current residents. The DEIR should be reissued with cumulative impacts
compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions clearly addressed.
Submitting DEIR Comments Page 8
4.9.8. (Should be 4.11.8) Regulations. Adopted goals for intersection and roadway level of
service provide the framework for approving or disallowing new development to reduce
potential impacts. Allowing unsatisfactory level of service to get even worse with no mitigation
is in conflict with the adopted goals for level of service.
4.9.9 (Should be 4.11.9) Mitigation. This mis-numbered section says in one line that traffic
impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. The discussion through -out
Section 4.11 says that level of service on the surrounding freeways will be unacceptable in 2020
and 2040. Concluding that no mitigation is required is not logical. Bad traffic can most certainly
be made worse by bad planning. Professional Planners and elected officials have a
responsibility to make our cities better, not to continue to approve unmitigated development
knowing it will make quality of life worse for the current residents. The DEIR should be reissued
with mitigations to the cumulative impacts compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions clearly
stated.
2
4.9.10 (Should be 4.11.10) LOS after Mitigation. This section should be re -written and
mitigations to the cumulative impacts compared to 2020 and 2040 conditions are defined.
Respectfully,
Marilyn S Fuller
Orozco, Norma
From:
Alan Fuller <
Sent:
Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:49 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
City Council Meeting, Feb 5, 2019
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
City Council Meeting Feb 5, 2019
ALAN H. FULLER
------------------------
------------------------
March 6, 2018
1 have lived in Santa Ana for 41 years, at the same address on Santiago Street. The house was built in 1922
for the manager of the Yost Theater. I bought my house from James Anderson who lived in the house for 35
years. Don Franklin was our real estate broker. Our neighborhood is now called Park Santiago, it was a nice
neighborhood when we moved in and over the years as new people moved in, I think it has gotten nicer.
I do not want our area to be injured by a re -zoning to accommodate the proposed development at 2525 Main
Street. We have accepted the professional zoning for all these years and see the rezoning to allow 500+
apartments at the end of Edgewood, which is one of the few access streets to our neighborhood, as an
excessive development at an already congested intersection. The congestion will spill into our area along with
overflow parking.
I feel that there are many examples of zoning changes or modifications that have occurred in Santa Ana that
have resulted in historically nice residential neighborhoods that have been negatively impacted by multi -family
building being built adjacent to single family homes. I know you see the terrible street parking congestion and
deteriorated properties in these areas. The people that live there now wish the zoning changes had not be
approved. And I know you, as the city council, are dealing with the problems that are associated within these
areas.
The developer wants the rezoning so that he can greatly increase the value of this property for his one time
profit. He does not and will not have any continuing interest in Santa Ana or the Park Santiago neighborhood.
If it is built, he will be on to the next project and we, the residents and the city council will remain and left to
deal with the future issues of increased speeding traffic and congested street parking in the neighborhood.
Please do not approve the rezoning so that we can continue to have a neighborhood to be proud of.
Respectfully
Alan H Fuller
I
Orozco, Norma
From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:44 PM
To: Orozco, Norma; Lopez, Kenia
Cc: Rojano, Michael; Garcia, Stephanie
Subject: FW: Request for postponement on vote for 2525 N. Main Street, development project to
2/19/19
Please include comments pertaining to 2525 N. Main comments
Respectfully,
Norma Mitre
Acting Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana I Clerk of the Council Office
20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701
714-647-5237 1 nmitre@santa-ana.org
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:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:24 PM
To: Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>; Castro -Cardenas, Julie <1Castro-Cardenas@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Request for postponement on vote for 2525 N. MainStreet, development project to 2/19/19
Dear Acting City Manager Mendoza;
I am hereby requesting that you postpone the vote on the above referenced project to February 19`^, 2019 or the
following meeting. The reason being is simply due to the enormity of the project, to ensure the City Council has time to
properly study and confer on this development which will forever change the face of one of our premier neighborhoods,
Park Santiago not to mention all of Santa Ana. In addition to ensure transparency in the process by the council and all
who have participated in this enterprise. Given that the EIR was rejected for approval by our Planning Commission it
shows the concerns of your appointed body charged with vetting such projects. The council needs more time to
properly analyze the merits of what this development will do to this area. To say that this is a "Legacy Project" with a
spider web of complications is certainly an understatement. I implore you to reset the date for this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tim Rush
Past President Wilshire Square Neigh. Assoc.
Past President Washington Square Neigh. Assoc.
SA Neighborhood Hero
Former Com -Link Board Member
(Please forward this to the City Clerk, Mayor and Council, City Attorney)
10
Cc; All Neighborhood Association Presidents, Comm -Link, OC Register, LA Times, Los Angeles Media News Group, Voice
of OC
Orozco, Norma
From: Diane Fradkin <
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:27 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel; Solorio, Jose; Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia; Penaloza, David; Reyna,
Roman; Sarmiento, Vicente
Cc: Thai, Minh; Kelaher, Selena; Fregoso, Vince; eComment; Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
Subject: Letter to City Council re: opposition to 2525 N. Main Street/Feb 5th CC hearing
Attachments: CC Itr for Feb 5 hearing.pdf
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers:
Please see the attached letter regarding 2525 N. Main Street. Thank you for your service to our City.
Sincerely,
Diane Fradkin
11
s 11
, ". 1
",
January 30, 2019
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Santa Ana
PO Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
RE: 2525 N. Main Street
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers:
VIA EMAIL & REGULAR MAIL
First and foremost, thank you for your ongoing duty and leadership for our City. You will
have a chance on February 5th to do what's right for our City, its citizens and the residents
of Park Santiago by denying the above proposed project at the upcoming hearing.
Many arguments have been made for and against the proposed project during the three
Planning Commission hearings. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the details of this
proposed project, but after many hours of testimony over many months and a few
shenanigans by the applicant/developer, the Planning Commission voted against the
project by a 4 — 2 vote with one abstaining. That's a pretty strong statement against the
proposed development.
This proposed project is just too dense and too intense for the location, particularly since it
is adjacent to historic single family residential homes on two sides. It is also located at a
very busy and at times, confusing five -way intersection of Main Street/Edgewood Road/5
Fwy Northbound Off Ramp/5 Fwy Car Pool Lanes On/Off Ramps.
As a business professional who has spent my career in real estate land entitlements and
development, I am familiar with the process and understand that it is a fine balance
between development and fees. I have been in the applicant's shoes many times and this
is the first time that I have been on the opposite side. I believe I can professionally see
both sides unbiasedly and look at the overall possible merits and potential problems of the
proposed project. As a 26 year resident of Park Santiago, I am not opposed to
development, but it needs to be responsible development that balances all of the needs of
the community.
The proposed project of 496 units (83/DUA) by way of a blocky, modern 5 story apartment
building surrounding an 8 story parking structure, is not at all a complementary or
compatible neighbor to the single family homes, primarily one story, in historic Park
Santiago. One of the Planning Commissioners stated she believes that the integrity of one
of the City's historic neighborhoods was at stake due to the proposed project. I couldn't
agree more! The proposed project does have a frontage along Main Street, but that
shouldn't be the only driving force in the design as it also abuts the historic neighborhood
on two sides as well.
The current zoning of the property is Professional Office which is a more compatible use
adjacent to our neighborhood. This use is more complementary because people come to
work there during the day and leave at night. This works well with the neighborhood as
most people leave their home during the day to go to work and come home at night. This
is especially favorable during the weekend as most of our neighborhood residents are
home on the weekend when most people working at the office building are off on the
weekend. It is symbiotic. This will not be the case with the proposed project since the
proposed multi -family use is 24/7 and will encroach on the adjacent neighborhood with
more noise, traffic, less pleasing aesthetics, building shadows, building light at night, more
overall pollutants generated by well over 1,000 residents in a very small location, etc.
Again, the proposed project is just too dense and too intense at this location.
I would encourage you to think about the following prior to the February 5th hearing......
Option
Deny the proposed project and proposed rezoning of Special District
Keep the site zoned as Professional Office, encouraging business redevelopment
which through recruitment, could provide more office/managerial and/or medical
jobs for Santa Ana. (Could also include a museum/art use as part of the
Professional Office zoning to continue the museum corridor.)
Option 2
If you have already predetermined that this location needs residential then I would
absolutely encourage you to request that the applicant and staff redesign the project
to a density of less than 38/DUA, the preference being 30/DUA, which is more
compatible at this restricted location. Also, project design needs to include the
following elements:
0 2 and 3 story buildings where the 3 stories are orientated towards Main Street
and the park and the 2 stories orientated to the south and east sides which is
where the single family homes are located
0 90' set back along the eastern boundary (Spurgeon Street)
0 25' set back along the southern boundary (Edgewood Road)
o Minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit
o Architecture of Spanish/Monterey/Mission style which is much more
complementary to the historic nature of Park Santiago
Again, thank you for your ongoing service to the City of Santa Ana. I know that you will
also conclude that the correct option for this property is to either deny the Special District
rezoning or reduce the density and intensity to 30/DUA which is much more compatible
with the existing historic single family, primarily single -story neighborhood of Park
Santiago.
Respectfully Submitted,
`.Mane ITWd&h
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago
cc: Minh Thai
Selena Kelaher
Vince Fregoso
Norma Mitre
Orozco, Norma
From: Brennan Roach <
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 8:14 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Stop Irresponsible development at 2525 main st. Santa Ana
I have been living in Santa Ana my whole life. The last 5-10 years has left me disheartened with what is
happening with this city and the ways it is developing. I'm e -mailing specifically about the plans for
development at 2525 n. main st.
The plans for this apartment complex is completely irresponsible and will create more traffic then needed in
that neighborhood. It just goes to show that who ever is making these plans don't consider or care what the
people of that area want. It is obvious that this apartment complex will cause unbalance within the Santiago
neighborhood.
It has been stated by hundreds of house owners along with an active protest that I am sure you're aware of.
Listen to your citizens. A city exists for the people, not land developers looking to fill their pockets.
12
Orono, Norma
From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 12:25 PM
To: Orozco, Norma
Subject: FW: Council vote RE 2525 N. Main Street
Please add to correspondence packet for 75E.
Thank you.
From: Carvalho, Sonia R. <SCarvalho@santa-ana.org>
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 12:13 PM
To: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>
Subject: FW: Council vote RE 2525 N. Main Street
Norma,
Please add to council comments and distribute in usual manner.
Thank you,
Sonia
From:
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 12:11 PM
To: Carvalho, Sonia R.
Subject: Council vote RE 2525 N. Main Street
PLEASE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL RE THEIR MEETING ON 02/05/19
Mr. Mayor & Members of the Council;
I encourage you to vote against this project. As the documentation on this huge development is nearly beyond
comprehension, that coupled with the very intense level of development proposed for the area close by ringing SA
MainPlace Mall are reason enough to cast your vote against this development. It is way out of scale. SA has far too
many projects that good judgement was abandoned in favor of the interests of developers. Not to mention the number
of residents who oppose this use in this location. It is the wrong project. Don't change the zoning and don't put this
kind of development at the doorstep to one of the finest neighborhoods in town. Please don't make this another
example of poor municipal governance.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Tim Rush
13
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:22 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting of February 5, Agenda Item 75E, Development of 2525 N.
Main St.
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: darcie cancino [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:06 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: City Council Meeting of February 5, Agenda Item 75E, Development of 2525 N. Main St.
This letter is to voice my concern over what appears to be a deliberate misleading of the procedures to take
place tonight regarding agenda item 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. The recommended action is "that the
City Council not open the public hearing and direct staff to reschedule and publish notice of public hearing to a
date specific."
North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance was told by Staff last week that a vote would not be held tonight and the
item would be deferred to a later date; however, late yesterday we were told a vote may occur. This confusion
has resulted in insufficient time for interested parties to make arrangements to attend this essential meeting and
insufficient time to review the Staff Report to prepare comments.
I ask that a vote NOT be held tonight.
I remain staunchly opposed to this development, for reasons I have previously communicated orally at Planning
Commission meetings, and in writing. Please do not sell out one of the finest neighborhoods in our city -to a big -
money developer. As the Planning Commission rightfully concluded, this project is wrong for the parcel and
will result in irreparable harm to Park Santiago and the City overall.
Respectfully,
Darcie L. Canino
Please note: My new email address is Please update your contacts! Thank you!
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:23 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza] 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: dingyonsunset[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:21 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main
I am against this project. I live in park santiago.
Sent from my T -Mobile 4G LTE Device
1S
Orozco, Norma
From:
Heather Sidell <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:31 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 PROJECT - OPPOSE
was born at Choc in 1971 and grew up in Santa Ana; attending Santiago Elementary, Willard, and
Santa Ana High school. I have the fondest childhood memories of knowing my neighbors, sharing
holidays at block parties, feeling a part of a community. My husband and I consciously came back to
Santa Ana to raise our children on the beautiful tree lined streets that I remembered as a child, to give
them the opportunity to have a similar wonderful childhood experience.
Conserving these neighborhoods, full of history and historical value, is imperative in preserving the
types of community that invests itself back into the city of Santa Ana.
I am not opposed to change; I am opposed to destroying a neighborhood community by allowing big
business to have their way.
Please vote AGAINST the 2525 project.
Preserve our neighborhood community, rich in historical value, rich in family values, dynamic in
diversity!
What we have to give back way has more value then this project.
Heather Sidell
Park Santiago Resident
Orozco, Norma
From: Cathy Morehead <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:55 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Public record comments for 2525 Mian, Feb 5th council meeting
Dear City Council and City of Santa ana
as a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any
rezoning and all of proposed actions below.
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. 31 2
Furthermore I would like it stated for the record that Staff intentionally
mislead the residents of Santa ana that the meeting that is being held on
February 5th had been canceled when infoact it had not.
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.
Please make this email part of the public record.
Cathy Morehead +!associates
www.CathyMorehead.com
17 1
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:01 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Against the 2525 Project
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices 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: Megan Klempa [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:54 AM
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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Against the 2525 Project
Hello City Counsel Members,
I wanted to express my deep concern and strong opposition to the building of the proposed project at 2525 Main
St. I am a resident of Park Santiago and see that this massive project would greatly impact the living situation
for myself and my neighbors.
I will be attending this evenings vote to ensure that my voice, as well as my neighbors voices are heard about
our extreme displeasure in the approval of this project.
Thank you,
Megan Klempa
�-25
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:01 AM
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: Lisa Caligiuri [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:52 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main Street
Good Morning,
I wanted to reach out to you as a resident of Santa Ana and a resident of Park Santiago
I am opposed to the proposed project on 2525 Main Street, Santa Ana. This project will greatly effect the quality of life for our
neighborhood. I live on Spurgeon St and will be directly impacted by this project. This building will look down on to our yard and we
will lose all of our privacy.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hear our voice. We do NOT want this project approved for our neighborhood. It will be a huge traffic
concern as well. We already have to wait at traffic lights more than once to get in and out of our neighborhood. With the freeway on
and offramps near, it is already compacted by too much traffic. There are already new developments built near by that are not even at
full capacity and this would be adding to that. Not only will it effect us in the future but also during the construction our lives will be
disrupted.
We have lived in the wonderful community for 20 years and are bringing up our children here. This is a wonderful historic community
that we are proud of.
Please do NOT allow Rezoning to this property. Please vote NO. Please keep our community amazing.
Thank you for listening,
Lisa Caligiuri
Resident of Park Santiago, Santa Ana
I
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:03 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 main st development
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: jeffrey foster [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 7:18 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 main st development
Hi Mayor Pulido, my name is jeffrey foster i live at 2645 santiago st santa ana ca.l heard form our neighborhood lead
dale halving that at the last minute the city council may vote on the 2525 main st development tonight (feb 5th) Since
our neighborhood was under the assumption u would not take any action tonight on this project i believe it is
inappropriate for u to vote on this project tonight since we have not been given enough time to give notice to the
residents of our neighbor hood and surrounding neighborhoods.) will be there tonight to voice my opposition to this
huge mostracity. Please consider what this will do to the traffic in this area and the impact it will have to the residents of
Santiago park and the surrounding neighborhoods. I hope the city council does the right thing, thanks for your
consideration
70
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:06 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 N Main
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: David Hastie [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:05 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N Main
Good Morning Mr. Mayor and City Council Persons,
I am unable to attend this evening's city council meeting to speak on the agenda item regarding request for zoning
changes and development at 2525 N Main Street.
As a resident of Park Santiago and a former Downtown Santa Ana business owner, I am 100% against the proposed
zoning changes and proposed high density residential development at 2525 N Main Street.
The location simply is not the right place for this type of development. All along Main Street, from 17th Street North to
the city border and further into our neighboring City of Orange, Main Street is a commercial zone. This residential
development is out of place and inconsistent with current zoning.
Additionally, the proposed 8 story height would greatly impact my, and my neighbors' quality of life. From my front yard,
at 2517 N Spurgeon, our current view of the sky will be blocked by this development.
Traffic, already difficult during morning and evening rush hours will get worse. Our children attend Orange County
Educational Arts Academy and must be to school at 8am. Most mornings it takes 2 or more light cycles to leave our
neighborhood at Edgewood and Main. It often takes 15 to 20 minutes to travel the 1.5 miles from home to school in
bumper to bumper, stop and go traffic.
Your appointed Planning Commission members did the right thing in rejecting the proposed zoning changes and this
grossly out of place development.
Please follow the recommendations of the commission you have appointed and deny the requested zoning changes at
2525 N Main Street.
Thank you,
David Hastie
Sent from my Whone
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:06 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: No on 2525 N Main St Development
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: Lisa Ganz [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:01 AM
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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: No on 2525 N Main St Development
Good morning,
I urge you to vote with the citizens of Santa Ana by voting NO tonight on the proposed development at 2525 N Main St.
The residents stand united in opposition to this development. Thank you.
Orozco, Norma
From: Edwin Garrido <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:06 AM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 Main st opposition
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of
proposed actions below.
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
W
Orozco, Norma
From: Martin Garrido <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:09 AM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 Main Street opposition
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed actions below.
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
eComment@santa-ana.org
Sent from my Whore
2-1
Orozco, Norma
From:
Gina Garrido <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:13 AM
To:
eComment
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed actions below.
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
G-
Orozco, Norma
From:
Debra Ann Curran <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:14 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main, Santa Ana
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose
any rezoning and all of proposed actions below. 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
Debra Curran
2
Orozco, Norma
From:
Rocky Caligiuri <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:18 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main St
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose
any rezoning and all of proposed actions below. 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
Rockland Caligiuri
Park Santiago Resident, Santa Ana
a
Orozco, Norma
From:
Lisa Caligiuri <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:19 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main St
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose
any rezoning and all of proposed actions below. 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
Lisa Caligiuri
Park Santiago, Santa Ana Resident
M
Orozco, Norma
From:
David Hastie <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:20 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 N Main Street
Dear City Council
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of
proposed actions below.
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
Thank you,
David Hastie
Sent from my Whone
9-1
Orozco, Norma
From: Sherry Smith <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:20 AM
To: eComment
Subject: OPPOSSED TO THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2525 N.
MAIN ST.
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed
actions below.
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
I am tired of the developer paying people to come in and voice their opinions when they do not live in the
neighborhood. We don't need this development. It will ruin our historic neighborhood. Vote against this
proposed development like the Planning Commission did. Thank you.
Sherry and David Smith
ME
Orozco, Norma
From: Mike Tardif <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:26 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Iglesias, Cecilia; Angie Cano; Chris Schmidt; Dale Helvig; Pulido, Miguel
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
31.
Orozco, Norma
From:
ANA LINARES <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:34 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
I oppose any rezoning and all proposed actions at 2525 North Main Street
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed
actions below.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2018-01
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018.01
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-01 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3,2
Ana Linares
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Council Members:
January 26, 2019
7019 FE ""'57
CITY C
CLEF
The Minarik Family
Please prevent the rezoning of the property at 2525 North Main Street! My family and I are very
concerned that the magnitude of the proposed project would ruin our neighborhoods, and our homes,
and lives would suffer as a result of the high-density impact.
As you may know, the developer's estimate is 1.8 cars/unit, but judging by the number of cars/dwelling
in our neighborhood, it should be at least 2-4 cars/unit, maybe more, as high rents require multiple
tenants/unit. The added traffic and parking will result in more accidents, wear and tear on our roads,
and need for more law enforcement officers. As it is, we can hardly get in and out of our driveway, and
had an accident trying to turn into our driveway where a little girl in the oncoming car was injured. It
can take five to ten minutes to get through the light at Santiago X 17th St. during morning and afternoon
rush hours. If you drive along E. 20th Street in Park Santiago at night, you will see there are many cars
parked on the streets. We've had three stolen cars in front of our house this past year, with two more
down the block. It's nice to know whose cars are parked near your house for safety reasons.
There is also a lovely and newly renovated park which we enjoy next to the site, and it is our
understanding that the developer plans to use the park driveway for their traffic. Such an arrangement
would affect and possibly ruin the park setting and its use.
Another concern we have is the security necessary for such a development. Quality security is
expensive, and most developers will economize here, and cut back with the passage of time.
We hope the developer could explore a more suitable place for his development, such as south on Main
Street, or Bristol Street, where there are areas where our City could be improved with such a project.
The City has widened Bristol Street, at great expense, to allow for larger developments, and there is a
large tract of land near Warner and Main Streets where the complex could be an asset to the City.
Perhaps the developer could be encouraged to explore a more beneficial site for this project in the
southern areas of our city?
We urge you to vote "no" on the rezoning of this tract of land at 2525 N. Main St. Thank you for your
time and thoughtfulness to make Santa Ana a safer, more beautiful place!
Sincerely,
ane, Dave Andrew
and Nathanael inarik
January 25, 2019
2019 FIR -5 !„ g: 57
Dear Mayor Pulido,
CITY Cr" S NT "A
C L E i' i'; i`1 i
First let me congratulate you on your victory in this past election. I also want to wish you and your
family a Happy New Year. My wife and I have lived in the Park Santiago neighborhood of Santa Ana
for more than 14 years. We fell in love with the neighborhood the first time we saw it and really
love living here in this quaintjewel of Santa Ana where the neighbors are close, friendly, warm and
passionate about their neighborhood. I am writing this letter to you because on February 5th you
and your fellow Councilmembers will be asked to make a very important decision on a proposed
high density, multi -family 496 unit apartment complex known as 2525 North Main Street Project at
the gateway to our lovely neighborhood. On January 1411, the Santa Ana Planning Commission
rejected and voted against the 2525 North Main Street project as planned and presented and cited
the density disparity and the significantly negative impact that the development, as currently
planned, would have on the Park Santiago neighborhood. In response, the Developer has decided
to move forward with this project to bring it before the Santa Ana City Council in the hopes that the
Councilmembers will reject the Santa Ana Planning Commission's recommendation and vote to
approve the project as it currently stands. I ask you to please discuss this project with your
appointed Planning Commissioner Mark McLoughlin to get a better understanding of this project
and the impact that if approved it will have on our community. On February S" you will be
presented with a very important decision to make. This is a decision that I know you will take
very seriously and consider the impact your decision will have on the residents of my community,
a decision that you will make in a matter of hours, however one that will have a lifetime impact
on the residents of the Park Santiago neighborhood.
As has been voiced by a vast majority of the residents of Park Santiago, we are not against
development, however what we want is responsible development. The proposed 2525 North Main
Street Project, which currently adds a 496 unit apartment complex with a density of 84 units per
acre right at the doorstep of our community of single family homes with a density of 7 units per
acre, is not responsible development. It is the disparity in the densities and the subsequent
negative effect this brings that are of most concern to the residents of Park Santiago. This reflects
the fact that the Planning Department's project management staff failed to enlist the residents of
Park Santiago early in the planning stages of the project and also showed a distinct partiality to the
Developer and his desires for the project. The project as currently planned will never be accepted
by the residents of Park Santiago. I believe that you would agree that a project that addresses the
concerns of the Park Santiago residents, one that would be welcomed by the neighborhood as part
of the neighborhood is the best outcome for all involved, the Park Santiago residents, the
apartment owners and operators, the apartment residents and the City of Santa Ana. In the
remainder of this letter I will point out issues with the project and with the project management
team's approach and process in bringing this project to the City Council for action, evidence that
the project management staff failed in their fiduciary responsibility to the residents of Santa Ana in
general and Park Santiago specifically, instead demonstrated a true bias in favor of the Developer.
What I am asking you to do is to reject the proposal as it currently stands and request the Planning
3�
Commission and the project management staff to work on a new proposal that will realistically
address the major concerns of the community.
It has become quite obvious that the project management staff has demonstrated by its actions
over the course of the project planning a distinct favoritism for the Developer and a disregard of
the concerns of the residents of Park Santiago.
1. As admitted by the project management's staff, from the onset this property was
advertised to the Developer that, even though the property was currently zoned as
Professional, the zoning will be changed to multi -family residential with unlimited height
and density. The property currently is zoned with a height restriction of 3 stories and the
neighborhood, of which it is part, is zoned with a maximum height of 2 stories and density
of 7 units per acre (1-11-7). How can any reasonable Planning Department representative
provide a Developer basically a blank check with respect to height and density? Would any
reasonable parent give their teenage son or daughter a credit card and tell them they can
spend as much as they want, unlimited spending?
2. At the request of the Developer, the project management staff made an attempt to rush
this project's approval through the Planning Commission by scheduling a vote on it the
Monday (November 26) after the long Thanksgiving weekend even though the Final EIR
had not been released. This was done for two reasons, one to limit the amount of time
that the Planning Commissioners would have to review the EIR and the associated public
comments and more specifically to get this project to the City Council for a vote prior to
the seating of three newly elected City Council members in mid-December. Thankfully the
Planning Commission saw through this rushed attempt to appease the Developer's wishes
and rejected the project management team's attempt with the instructions to bring the
project back on January 14tH
3. The current project plan includes Option 3 which utilizes an entrance to the complex from
Edgewood Road. Park Santiago residents have voiced their concerns with including this
option since it would facilitate cut through traffic through the neighborhood and also
encourage parking of vehicles along Bush and Spurgeon. While eliminating an entrance on
Edgewood Road will have a tendency to reduce cut through traffic and parking of excess
vehicles in the neighborhood, it will not eliminate this from occurring. In the Request for
Planning Commission Action the project management team notes that in the latest version
of the project the Developer has eliminated the entrance on Edgewood Road, howeverthe
project management team failed to stipulate in their recommended modifications the
prohibition of an entrance on Edgewood Road should the Developer fail to obtain the
approval for their Walkie Way entrance which leaves the possibility of a revision in the
future to include an Edgewood Road entrance. The project managementteam also refused
requests bythe residents of Park Santiago to remove Option Cfrom the EIR and the project
plan altogether. One would have to believe that the Developer has future plans to add an
entrance on Edgewood Road citing rationale of failure to obtain the Walkie Way entrance
as well as public safety and traffic concerns. Without a hard fast restriction on any
entrance to the complex from Edgewood Road it leaves open the possibility of a late
change to the project's design.
4. The project management team wants to give the City Council the appearance that they are
listening to the concerns of the Park Santiago residents with respect to the problem with
the planned density of the project by making a minimal reduction in the number of units
from 517 units to 476 units. However they fail to note that the Developer had originally
reduced the total number of units from 517 to 496, so the project management team's
response to the Park Santiago residents concern on density was a reduction from 496 units
to 476 units. They also fail to make mention that this was accomplished by reducing the
number of studio and 1 bedroom units and creating additional 2 and 3 bedroom units.
Even at 476 units this represents a density of 81 units per acre significantly dwarfing the
neighborhood in which it resides which has a density of 7 units per acre.
5. The project management team makes an attempt to persuade the City Council into
accepting their premise that a multi -family apartment density of 81 units per acre adjacent
to single family residences is well within what has been approved and in existence in the
City of Santa Ana. They do this by citing 7 projects with relatively similar densities:
a. The Nineteen0l: 49 units per acre
b. The Line: 58 units per acre
c. The Heritage: 65 units per acre
d. The Marke: 74 units per acre
e. Prisma: 91 units per acre
f. The Madison: 94 units per acre
g. Elan: 94 units per acre
What they fail to mention is the fact that none of their examples are developments that
abut single family residential communities. I've attached Google Earth views of all 7 of
these projects and as you can see all are located in more commercial areas of the city. For
comparison, I've also included a Google Earth view of the proposed project site. As you can
see the project management team is providing evidence that supports the Developer's
recommendations instead of providing examples of multi -family projects located within a
single family residential area in an effort to sway the City Councilmember's views on the
project's density in favor of the Developer and away from the residents of Santa Ana. The
lowest density development at 49 units per acre, significantly less than the project's 81
units per acre, is located in an industrial area with the closest single family homes located
on the other side of the 5 and the 55 freeways! If the project management team really
wanted to provide an apples -to -apples comparison with this proposed project instead of
making an attempt to support the Developer's proposal, then they should have selected
multi -family developments located within similar single family residential areas.
6. This project violates Policy 2.10 of the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Ana General
Plan: "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with
existing development in the area." I submitted a comment to address the Draft EIR noting
that the EIR fails to reflect the nature and character of the Park Santiago neighborhood of
which it is contained. However the project management team's response to this comment
was "The project site is not contained within the Park Santiago neighborhood.... The Park
Santiago neighborhood does not exist along N. Main Street. Thus it is appropriate that the
EIR does not provide greater weight to the residential neighborhood...." A check of the
neighborhood maps provided by the City of Santa Ana makes the claim by the project
management team the project site is not part of the Park Santiago neighborhood as a false
claim (https://www.santa-ana.org/neighborhood-initiatives/community-engagement-
and-volunteer-opportunities). In making this false claim the project management team
again indicates that it sides more closely with the Developer than with the residents of
Park Santiago. Again it should be reiterated, the six parcels identified for use in this
development, contrary to what the project management team is claiming, are part of the
Park Santiago neighborhood and any justification using an argument that the parcels are
not is totally false and should be rejected by the City Council.
7. The number of proposed parking spaces planned for the project has always been a major
concern with the residents of Park Santiago. With insufficient parking made available for
the residents there will be renters who will park their vehicles along Bush Street and
Spurgeon Street. As evidence of this one only needs to view the excessive number of
vehicles from a nearby apartment complex parked along Santiago near 17th Street. The
Developer has planned for 904 spaces of which 150 (17%) are identified as tandem parking
for the 496 units or a rate of 1.80 parking spots per unit. The Request for Planning
Commission Action in Table 9: Parking Per SAMC Section 41-1322 Multi -family Dwellings
notes that for a project of this size the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) requires 1,420
spaces or a ratio of 2.86 spaces per unit. However, the project management team has
elected to disregard the SAMC requirements and allow the Developer to provide
significantly less. However they again side with the Developer by saying that the SAMC is
outdated and the parking requirements were established in 1997. To assume that the
number of vehicles per household unit has decreased in number since 1997 is a naive
statement, in fact the opposite is true. The project management team again has sided with
the Developer and will allow significantly less than the SAMC mandated 1,420 parking
spots. An attempt is made to address the Park Santiago residents concerns regarding
inadequate parking by making it a requirement to have a minimum of 952 spaces or 2.0
spaces per unit. Compounding this decision the project management team has agreed
with the Developer's assertion that the 2.0 parking spots per unit can be obtained through
the use of valet services. Valet services for apartment dwellers is illogical. The project
management team admitted during the January 14th Planning Commission meeting that
the use of valet parking to address a shortage of parking spaces had never been used for a
multi -family apartment complex in Santa Ana before. Besides, who will be waiting for a
valet to bring them their car so that they can run to the store for groceries? Where will
the valet parkthese extra cars, in the Park Santiago neighborhood? The City Council should
not allow this project to violate the SAMC parking requirements of 2.86 spaces per unit.
Nor should the project be allowed to use valet services to meet the requirement.
8. As noted in the Request For Planning Commission Action Table 6: Professional Zone
Comparison, the project will reduce the current set back from the east property line
nearest to the existing homes on Spurgeon Street from 50 feet minimum to 40 feet 7 inches
minimum. It also reduces the existing requirement of 25 feet maximum height within
approximately 240 feet of the east property line to 40 to 66 feet. Both of these changes
will significantly impact the home owners who reside on Spurgeon Street adjacent to the
project and contributes to the negative aesthetic impact which the EIR noted as being
significant. By allowing these changes that the Developer has requested, it once again
shows that the project management team has placed the Developer's needs over the
concerns of the residents of Park Santiago.
9. The EIR identifies one "significant and unavoidable" impact associated with this project,
which pertains to aesthetics. CEQA guidelines Section 15126.6 (c) requires that "an EIR
analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly avoid
or reduce any significant unavoidable impacts of the project." However the project
management team's selection of alternatives for the proposed project failed to list the
most obvious alternative, development of the property into single family homes. The
Developer was asked in one of the neighborhood meetings if they would consider
developing the property with single family homes and the response was that they are in
the multi -family home development business and would not consider any other
alternative. To most people it is obvious that if an alternative to the project was single
family homes it would meet the CEQA guidelines of selecting an alternative that could
"feasibly avoid or reduce any significant unavoidable impacts of the project" namely the
aesthetic significant impact. When this was pointed out to the project management team
as a response to the draft EIR their response was "The alternative to develop the site with
single-family residences ... is not a variation of the proposed project or allowed under the
existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the project site. In addition, the
project's underlying purpose is to develop multi family residential uses on the project site.
Asingle-family residential alternative would not meet the project's objective." The refusal
of the project management team and the assertions that single-family residential would
not meet the project's objective can be read more realistically as that single-family
residential, while it would eliminate the aesthetics significant impact, would not meet the
Developer's requirements. Again this is evidence that the project management team has
approached this project with a desire to meet the Developer's requirements over the
expressed concerns of the residents of Park Santiago.
10. The City of Santa Ana General Plan currently identifies the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
North Main Street to be 1.5. As noted in the Request For Planning Commission Action,
the proposed project has a Floor Area Ratio of 2.28, significantly more than the City of
Santa Ana General Plan allows. If the project were to be designed using a FAR of 1.5 it
would represent a 35% reduction in the size of the project! This is additional evidence that
the project management team is siding with the Developer's requests and attempting to
dictate revisions to the General Plan to allow the Developer's plan.
11. In the Request For Planning Commission Action the project management team in the
Neighborhood Character section readily admits that the "project is not in character with
the neighborhood, which it shares two sides with, as the neighborhood is comprised of
single-family dwellings and the project is a high density multi family housing project."
The Park Santiago neighborhood is comprised of homes of varying styles including colonial,
Spanish, ranch and craftsman, several over 100 years old. The project as planned is
designed in a modern contemporary architectural style which as admitted by the project
management team doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. However, instead of
working with the Developer to provide an architectural design (Spanish for example) that
would fit better with the existing Park Santiago neighborhood, they wrote it off as
unavoidable. This is additional evidence that the project management team has taken on
the Developer's desires with little to no consideration of the desires of the Park Santiago
residents.
12. For the Planning Commission meeting on January 14th, the Developer recruited, and
possibly paid, a Housing Advocacy group to have several people attend the Planning
Commission meeting and using talking points provided by the Developer, these people
with little knowledge of the project voiced their support for the project citing the lack of
affordable housing. Although requested by the Planning Commission Chairman to provide
their name and address prior to addressing the Commission, most did not because they
did not live in the City of Santa Ana. The project as proposed will have rents ranging from
$2000-$3700 per month. Using the budget recommended 30% of salary guide for housing
it would require a single individual or a family to have a household income of $80,000 to
$148,000. According to the latest SCAG report 46% of the households in Santa Ana earn
less than $50,000. The project will not meet the intended goal of providing additional
housing for the current residents of Santa Ana and thus relieving the overcrowded
conditions within the city, instead it would attract additional people from outside of Santa
Ana, thus providing little to no benefit to the current city residents except additional traffic
and taxation on the city's resources.
13. According to Request For Planning Commission Action Table 11: Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Progress 2014 — 2017 the identified RHNA allocation for Santa Ana is 405 units,
of which 90 were classified as Above Moderate. As noted in the table the City has already
greatly surpassed this need with the addition of 916 housing units during this timeframe.
More importantly of the 916 units, 768 were classified as Above Moderate, significantly
dwarfing the allocation requirement of 90. This report does not take into consideration
the nearly 3600 units that are planned within a % mile radius of the proposed 2525 North
Main Street project.
a. 2700 North Main: 247 units
b. Prisma: 182 units
c. Elevenl0 (Town and Country): 260 units
d. Town & Country Apartments: 727 units
e. Main Place Mall Redevelopment: 1900 units
It should also be noted that the project management team refused to acknowledge and
include the proposed 1900 units planned for the Main Place Mall Restoration project in
the EIR or in any of their project development planning activities. Refusing to take the
scope of the Main Place Mall project into consideration is another example of how the
project management team has worked to slant to proposal in the favor of the Developer.
The City Council should recognize the need to evaluate the Main Place Mall Redevelopment
project as part of the analysis for the 2525 North Main Street project. Failing to recognize
this major restoration project is turning a blind eye to realities. With nearly 3600 new units
planned or completed within a % mile radius, a reduction in the density of this project by
half would be fairy insignificant in the big picture, would significantly reduce the adverse
aesthetic impact of the project and would allay a significant amount of the concerns of the
Park Santiago residents.
14. The Developer is trying to buy his way into approval of this project as is. Several of the
neighbors who live on Spurgeon Street have reported that the Developer has contacted
them on several occasions asking what it would take to get them to support the project,
including offers of repairs and upgrades to their property. At a recent Planning
Commission meeting the Developer admitted to the plan to pay the Discovery Center over
$1,000,000 to help them with their planned parking structure project if they indicate
support of the 2525 North Main Street project. The Developer is promising to spend $1.41M
for park improvements, however as the project management team has documented, the
Developer in lieu of giving the City $1.41M and allowing the City to make the improvements,
have the option of making the improvements themselves with the variation of allowing
them to spend "up to" $1.4M for improvements. This would allow them to spend
significantly less money on improvements to which the project management staff has
agreed. The Developer has stated that they would provide 24 hour security surveillance
for the Park Santiago neighborhood for 55 years, however with the yearly option of ceasing
this service. Also the area for surveillance does not encompass the entire Park Santiago
community, instead stopping short at Santiago Street. It is true that the Developer has
more substantial financial resources that can be used to help influence the City Council to
decide in their favor while the hard working residents of Park Santiago do not. What we
are hoping is that the members of the City Council listen to their constituents and
understand our concerns and reject this project as currently planned with the request to
develop a workable solution that all parties can support.
Mayor Pulido, I sincerely want to thank you for your time in reviewing my letter and the concerns
of the Park Santiago community. I invite you to take a ride or a walk through our lovely
neighborhood, talk with some of the residents and get a good feeling of the charm and uniqueness
of Park Santiago. I believe that you too will be convinced that the community is special. Thank -
you.
p" Fed Roo llnn Santa Ana
<r
�T
Discovery Cube "
_ 2 2S,Mam Street
� Crange' County 5 a� t _• ..1y' r� L
ti, t3
Alm
)s Creditt
'
wy
Go-ogle
oo le '
— r—
.\_n9 'e+
NineteenOl 1901 East First Street
(49 Units / Acre)
.A,
F A
..�
'
(49 Units / Acre)
F4
The Line 3630 Westminster Blvd
(58 Units / Acre)
The Heritage 2001 East Dyer Road
(65 Units / Acre)
The Marke 100 East Macarthur Blvd
(74 Units / Acre)
Prisma 301 East Jeanette Lane
(91 Units / Acre)
� •� • Vii.
c+
r
N
9 8 '
Ole
The Madison 200 North Cabrillo Park
(94 Units / Acre)
Tbink T,gethcr �
o
` Consulad e
ncn[e Sana N s
Leal O haemo. pen Waods�
I I
j . sty.
� •na ,^ �'i_� : dam+
a
a h
@r w
ZZ
ia' ShoE.,ofrlpanv � PAoteIr)j�iMa rang
5 afl
Lttm
x Royal'Roman'
sK -E&Fiirst'St
3 Fy
�}6I;East Fi te, i,`
t _
i
r i
ea
- - Crys[al�t_voigA��a rd�'1.. � t•v� r;`_�� �`
� Santa Ana Unified
tl r
_ - b 4 ai',fn, Z�o _
Goo le 41,
r
y�ra 3 Labor s3Locah652' 9
s I
Orozco, Norma
From:
Raul Duran <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:18 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2018-01
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed actions below.
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
Orozco, Norma
From:
Lenette Wardinski <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:43 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Opposition to Agenda Item #75E
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a 19 -year resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I
OPPOSE any rezoning and all of proposed actions related to Item #75E on the Agenda for tonight (February 5,
2019), and as detailed below:
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
Respectfully,
Lenette J. Wardinski
�J �
Orozco, Norma
From:
Carol Slaton <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:45 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main
Please do not be influenced by the lies of the developer or his money. He does not have the interests of the future of
Santa Ana in mind. Do you???? If you do then please follow the lead & common sense of the Planning Commission &
vote NO on the monstrosity at 2525 Main. The developer's plan for this site is just too big to be next to historic single
family homes. Preserve what is good in Santa Ana.
Carol Slaton
2 year resident of Santa Ana
30 year resident of Irvine
Sent from my Whone
Orozco, Norma
From:
Steve Wardinski <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:46 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Opposition to Agenda Item #75E
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose
any rezoning and all of proposed actions below. 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
Respectfully,
Steve Wardinski
Rol
Orozco, Norma
From: Jennie Clacken <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:03 AM
To: eComment
Cc: Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Reyna, Roman;
Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia
Subject: Santa Ana Resident Opposing Rezoning
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana,
As a new resident of Park Santiago, I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of the
proposed actions below:
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.
Park Santiago and Floral Park have a rich history that preserves what Santa Ana used to be. Why would you
vote to do ANYTHING that changes that and wipes that away forever? Please do not vote yes to the
overcrowding in this North Santa Ana area!
You, as the City Council, have so much opportunity to capture what The Orange Circle is capturing - Preserving
the Area and Bringing in Businesses that attract people from OUTSIDE Santa Ana to Spend Money Here!!
Make smart choices to INVEST into the city of Santa Ana, not fast and easy choices that will just continue us
down the same path that just make you have to raise sales taxes. This is your opportunity to show the city that
you are investing in a beautiful and bright future.
Thank you for listening,
Jennie Clacken
J1
Orozco, Norma
From: Jennifer Sterett <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:05 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Destroying Park Santiago
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any
rezoning and all of proposed actions below. 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.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Sterett
LA 0
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:29 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Opposition to 2525 North Main Street Development
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.ora
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: Erica Sharar [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:21 AM
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>; Reyna, Roman <RReyna@santa-
ana.org>
Subject: Opposition to 2525 North Main Street Development
Like the North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance (NSAPA) my family is opposed to the proposed 2525 North
Main Street Development.
Multi -family residential developments directly adjacent to single-family homes will decrease property values
and further increase traffic congestion on Main Street at an already problematic intersection of Edgewood, Main
Street and freeway on and off ramps.
In addition, the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission has opposed the development of 2525 Main Street
multi -family residential development; the Commission acknowledges that the proposed multi -family residential
development is not appropriate for our historic single-family residential neighborhood.
Further, NSAPA was intentionally misled by City of Santa Ana staff and told the City Council would be
pushing the public comment/voting date from 2/5/19 to a future date.
Respectfully,
Erica and Edward Sharar
1.i e
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:30 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: A Direct Neighbor's Comment Re: 2525 N Main for tonight's meeting
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: Jaine Chapman[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:27 AM
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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@santa-
ana.org>; Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-ana.org>
Subject: A Direct Neighbor's Comment Re: 2525 N Main for tonight's meeting
Hello, I had planned to come to the city council meeting tonight to speak regarding the 2525 N Main St Project.
I understood that our item was taken off of the agenda, and I cancelled my babysitter. Now I understand that
there is a chance it could be voted on by the City Council tonight, and I'm unable to attend, so I'm submitting
my comments by email.
My name is Jaine Chapman, I live on North Spurgeon St in Park Santiago. This is a sensitive topic to me, as my family's home is
directly adjacent to 2525 N Main. It is actually in our backyard.
We realize that something new may be built behind our home, but I am here to speak against the DENSITY of this proposed
project. At 81 DUA, nothing this dense has ever been built next to single family homes in Santa Ana. The current high water
mark for density next to R1 is 58 DUA, The Line Apartments in SA.
There is a recommended alternate listed in the EIR with the exact density as The Line. Why not go with this instead of voting in
an unprecedented density of apartments next to R1?
Even Irvine is removing office buildings and increasing apartment stock. But Irvine's city leaders have the good sense not to
place the highest possible density apartments next to single family homes.
IF Vineyard Development has overinvested in this property, and needs to place as many units as possible on it to recouperate
their investment, it is not the responsibility of the people or City Council, to fix that. Even there has been motivation by financial
incentive. It is your responsibility to remain accountable to the strong voice of the citizens of Santa Ana, and your City Planning
Commission.
As a luxury apartment complex, with luxury rent prices the
discussion of this particular project does not apply to students, low
1> z
income families, or young families saving to buy a home, as some
speakers tonight may try to propose.
I urge you to vote No on this project. To vote Yes on this project would be to go against the advisement of the planning
commission and your constituents which are directly impacted by this development. I'm not saying there can't be redevelopment
at this lot. I am saying there needs to be responsible development here and this project is far from responsible.
Thank you.
Orozco, Norma
From:
Norma Bunge <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:32 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main Project
Please vote No on this development. This project will have a negative impact on traffic and safety. Our water supply is
already in short supply. Please vote NO.
Thank you,
Sent from my Whone
Norma Bunge
Orozco, Norma
From: Robert Tiritilli <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:33 AM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 N. Main Street
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Fisher Park I would like to go on record that I oppose
any rezoning and all of proposed actions below.
• FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2.018-01
• 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
Robert Tiritilli
1
Orozco, Norma
From:
Susan <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:33 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 N. Main St.
Dear Santa Ana City Council,
As a 48 year resident resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of
proposed actions below. 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
Susan Hyatt
Resident
M
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:47 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 main street
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.orQ
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza [ 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: nelda marquez [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:31 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 main street
Mayor Pulido,
Please support our family and neighborhood by not supporting the proposed high density development being
proposed at this location. This development will negatively impact our neighborhood.
The location is currently zoned for commercial use and used to house Wells Fargo. Please keep current zoning
in place and don't allow apartments to be built at this location.
Once again, please do not support this project.
Thank you.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
E
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:47 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main vote
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office! nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza! 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: Eugen Andres[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:29 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main vote
Dear Mayor Pulido,
I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of Santa Ana. I understand that you are going to vote on the
development of apartments at 2525 N. Main St. I believe that this development is not in the best interests of the
citizens of Santa Ana. I urge you to not to sell out to big developers and ruin a neighborhood. Why should the
city bail out a developer who was naive enough to grossly overpay for the property and close escrow without
the city's approval. Also, with the proposed development of Main Place mall into a large residential project
there is no need for the 2525 N. Main project. Please don't be put developers ahead of the citizens you are
supposed to represent. Vote NO on this project!!
Respectfully,
Charlie Andres
Santa Ana Unified School District E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments, including documents, files,
or previous e-mail messages, constitute electronic communications within the scope of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510 of al.
This e-mail communication may contain non-public, confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s).
The unauthorized and intentional interception, use, copy or disclosure of such information, or attempt to do so, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful
under applicable laws. If you have received this e-mail communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the
original e-mail from your system.
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:49 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Opposition to Agenda Item #75E
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office[ nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza 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: Steve Wardinski [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:16 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item #75E
Dear Mayor Pulido,
As a 10 -year resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I OPPOSE any rezoning and all of proposed
actions related to Item #75E on the Agenda for tonight (February 5, 2019), and as detailed below:
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
Respectfully,
Professor Steve Wardinski, Delegate from California, District 51 to the 2004 Democratic National Convention
IA
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:49 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 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: Jennifer Sterett [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:10 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main
Dear Mayor Pulido,
Please do not let the city council destroy our neighborhood tonight. Traffic will be a nightmare, not only for Park
Santiago residents, but Floral Park residents as well. You know how backed up Santa Clara gets when you head out
toward Broadway and Main. It will only get worse with the addition of thousands of vehicles that will be driven by the
residents of the many, many projects that are planned for Santa Ana (and on the border with Orange). Do not let a
greedy developer with NO INTEREST in preserving our neighborhood fool you with their "generosity." Council members
who have accepted money from this developer should not be allowed to vote.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Sterett
Sent from my Whone
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:50 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main St., Santa Ana
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston 1 Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office I nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza [ 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: Jim C [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:50 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main St., Santa Ana
As a long time resident of the Park Santiago neighborhood I strongly protest the proposed development of 400
to 500 apartments at the subject property.
The impact in terms of traffic, parking, crime and property values are all totally negative.
I urge you to vote against approval of this project.
Sincerely,
Jim Cordiel
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:50 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: OPPOSED to 2525 MAIN spot rezone and project
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: Candice Vance [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:48 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: OPPOSED to 2525 MAIN spot rezone and project
Mayor Pulido,
I am a resident of Park Santiago neighborhood, a very special residential area in the City of Santa Ana. I am opposed to
the 2525 Main Street Project for many reasons not the least of which is scale. This project is inconsistent with the
neighborhood density. I am opposed to spot zoning for this project.
Spot zoning is typically used because it serves a useful purpose for the neighborhood such as providing a school or a
park. Spot rezoning of 2525 Main street is not providing a useful purpose for the neighborhood, it is strictly providing a
way for the developer to succeed with his project.
Pease take the developer's hand out of the pockets of our government and vote against the 2525 Main Street rezone
and project just as the Planning Commission did.
I would also like to further comment that someone in the City Council or planning office provided disinformation stating
that the item would not be voted on tonight, when that in fact was false. Clearly this was an effort to keep the vocal
residents opposed to this project from showing up tonight.
Candice Vance
51
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:50 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Tonight's vote
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office I nhoustonCo Santa-ana.ore
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701
This email and any flies 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: Brenda Call [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:42 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Tonight's vote
Dear Mayor Pulido,
When I was 21, my mom said we were moving to Santa Ana ... I thought she was crazy! Then I saw the 1910 Victorian Craftsman
and the neighborhood we were moving into and I understood why completely. I am writing you as a 30 year resident and 21 year
homeowner in Park Santiago. I have come to love this city and have spent my whole 28 year teaching career servicing the
underprivileged students in Santa Ana Unified.
I understand the need for housing, but I have also seen the many apartment buildings going up everywhere in the city, including
another one to occupy Tom's Tricks old property right near where I teach at Walker Elementary. I also know the 1900 just up the
street at Mahn Place will certainly be built in addition to all the ones being built and those built, but not occupied yet in our
neighboring city by Angel's Stadium. At least those buildings are not encroaching on and squashing such a jewel of a
neighborhood. I appreciate any help you can give in supporting our cause.
Sincerely,
Brenda Call
2nd Grade Teacher
Orozco, !Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:51 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: OPPOSED TO MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 2525 N. MAIN STREET
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.ore
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: Sherry Smith[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:32 AM
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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; Verino, Lynette <lverino@santa-
ana.org>; Nguyen, Ken <knguyen20@santa-ana.org>; Contreras -Leo, Cynthia <ccontreras-leo@santa-ana.org>;
McLoughlin, Mark <mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org>
Subject: OPPOSED TO MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 2525 N. MAIN STREET
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed
actions below.
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
We are tired of this developer constantly hiring people to come to the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings to applaud this development. Most of them don't even live in the neighborhood. We do not need
another development causing more traffic, ruining a historical neighborhood, and causing numerous parking
issues. It is not our problem that this developer purchased this property KNOWING that it was for businesses
development. Vote against this development like the Planning Commission did. We are proud of their vote and
hope you all do the same. Thank you.
Sherry and David Smith
53
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:51 AM
To:
eComment
Subject: FW: From Andrea Lee Harris Please Vote No on 2525 Main Street Project
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston ! Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.ore
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: Andrea Harris[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:22 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: From Andrea Lee Harris Please Vote No on 2525 Main Street Project
Dear Miguel,
I am asking you to vote no on the change in zoning and building of the oversized apartment project at 2525
Main Street. Mike and I bought our home in Park Santiago 17 years ago. As contributors to the arts and positive
growth of Santa Ana we have invested our passions and professionalism in making this city great. From my ten
years directing the Grand Central Art Center you saw my work serving the arts in Santa Ana and my
commitment and investment into the city. From the University students to Santa Ana High School students,
Mike and I encouraged passion and investment in this city and its community. We encouraged community and
the city to be excellent in all ways and encouraged all to live here and invest here in Santa Ana.
Park Santiago is our home and is important to us and to Santa Ana. It is as important as Floral Park is to you
and Santa Ana. It is a small and unique neighborhood. Building the mammoth project proposed on the main
corner into our neighborhood will be a devastation to this neighborhood. There is no other comparison of a city
in southern or northern California building such a dense project just feet away from one story moderate single
family homes like ours. The project is not in scale with the area and not encouraging of the positive growth to
the city and our neighborhood. Once it is here we will always have it here and it will always be a bad idea we
deal with daily.
As you know there are over 1900 additional apartments and a hotel being planned and built at Main Place Mall
which is only two blocks away. There are apartments already being completed and built around us that add up
to hundreds of units. We have plenty of housing available and being build already near us.
Please vote no Miguel. I appreciate your help and will be present at the city council meeting tonight to voice my
objection to this development.
Best to you,
Andrea
J-1
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:51 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main St
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 [ 20 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: Lisa Caligiuri [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:20 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main St
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning
and all of proposed actions below. 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
I wanted to reach out to you as a resident of Santa Ana and a resident of Park Santiago.
I am opposed to the proposed project on 2525 Main Street, Santa Ana. This project will greatly effect the
quality of life for our neighborhood. I live on Spurgeon St and will be directly impacted by this project. This
building will look down on to our yard and we will lose all of our privacy.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hear our voice. We do NOT want this project approved for our neighborhood. It
will be a huge traffic concern as well. We already have to wait at traffic lights more than once to get in and out
of our neighborhood. With the freeway on and offramps near, it is already compacted by too much
traffic. There are already new developments built near by that are not even at full capacity and this would be
adding to that. Not only will it effect us in the future but also during the construction our lives will be
disrupted.
We have lived in the wonderful community for 20 years and are bringing up our children here. This is a
wonderful historic community that we are proud of
Please do NOT allow Rezoning to this property. Please vote NO. Please keep our community amazing.
Thank you for listening,
IN
Lisa Caligiuri
Resident of Park Santiago, Santa Ana
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:51 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 N. Main Street Project
Attachments:
1-29-19 Letter to City Council.docx
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston ] Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office) nhouston(@santa-ana.or�
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza ( 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: Deborah [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 9:11 AM
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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main Street Project
Honorable Mayor and Council Persons:
Please see attached letter addressing 2525 North Main.
Thank you.
Deborah
It
chzpuff6)sbc l�net
M
February 5, 2019
Honorable Mayor and Council Persons:
Deborah Hicks— DeBach
Ten years ago, my husband and I were looking for a neighborhood in which to purchase a home. I told
him about Park Santiago and that is where we looked for the next several years. In 2010, we were lucky
enough to find a house we could afford. Its diversity and overall neighborly atmosphere were exactly
what we had been looking for. The beautiful entrance to our neighborhood is enhanced by the historic
palm trees that line Edgewood Road, and the aesthetically pleasing office building surrounded by
mature trees and landscaping were also contributing factors to our choice.
I have grown up in Orange County and used to drive to Santa Ana to shop at Fashion Square. I spent
loads of time downtown browsing the thrift stores and finding many treasures. Downtown then
converted to a walkable area. Formerly quaint neighborhoods were overwhelmed with multifamily
apartments placed willy-nilly and many of these same apartments are now akin to slums. The once
quaint neighborhoods now suffer with crime, gangs and homeless people.
Throughout it all, the Park Santiago neighborhood remained constant and thriving, like its neighbor
Floral Park. There is pride of ownership here. We look out for each other.
The proposed project at 2525 N. Main Street threatens this. We knew when we purchased our home
that the neighborhood zoning and general plan supported what was here. Now residents are being
asked to support a general plan change, and a zoning change to allow a behemoth of an apartment
complex being marketed as housing for the "professionals" who want to live in Santa Ana, when within
0.5 miles of this proposed project, 3500 newly approved units are in the pipeline.
The term low-income housing continues to come up at all meetings. This project is not affordable.
The City of Santa Ana is doing the lion's share in the county of addressing this housing need. Santa Ana's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 405 units for the planning period of 2014 through 2021.
Today the total remaining RHNA is 167 units. The data provided by the developer says their in lieu fee of
$6,071, 190 will produce 100 new low-income units. Your planning staff knows this is not possible and
you as city leaders know that too. One could expect at best, 12 to 14 units if the land costs were not
included.
The new Veteran's village is a project of 75 units being built on a 1.5 -acre parking lot at 3312 W. 11`
Street. It is not backing up to a residential neighborhood and the density there is 50 units per acre. Cost
is $29.7 million dollars, which works out to $396,000 per door or unit. I do not think an in lieu fee of
$6,000,000 would be even a drop in the bucket towards 100 units of affordable housing.
There are affordable projects built in the City that have only a density of 29.8 units per acre. I am citing
the Triada at the Station District site, which is 2.48 acres with a total of 74 units, which is 29.8 units per
acre. This project is located within the Lacy neighborhood at 616 N. Lacy Street and built at a lower
density. It is also aesthetically pleasing and blends nicely into the surrounding neighborhood. One need
only drive by to see the care and thought that went into integrating this project into its surrounding
neighborhood.
There are many other projects, which could emphasize the unique nature of this site. There is no need
to build this type of massive and intrusive project here. The cry for more housing is loud, but I can say
with all honesty that single-family homes are what young people who are starting a family want and not
everyone wants to live in an apartment.
The residents of Park Santiago would like to see plans for a viable office building at the site with no
zoning change or General Plan Amendment.
We trust that you, as guardians of the City will do the correct thing by taking the Planning Commission's
recommendation to deny this project.. You are the officials we elected to care for our city and its
residents. We are the residents and we do not support this project, a zoning change, or a General Plan
amendment.
Sincerely,
Deboraiti }f%ck�-De�3a.cly
Deborah Hicks-DeBach
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:52 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 North Main Street Project
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhoustonftsanta-ana.ore
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza ]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: Jun Tanega [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 10:46 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David
<DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, lose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Reyna, Roman <RReyna@santa-ana.org>;
Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@santa-
ana.org>
Subject: 2525 North Main Street Project
Hello Council members,
I am a resident of the Park Santiago neighborhood. I also am located on North Spurgeon Street, right next to
the proposed 2525 North Main St Project.
I purchased my home last July, knowing full well that the 2525 North Main Street Project was a possibility.
I am not opposed to the project. In fact, I want Santa Ana to continue to develop. What I am opposed to is
irresponsible development. Myself and my wife moved to Santa Ana from Ladera Ranch and saw first hand
what over -development causes. Literally every off -ramp from La Paz to Crown Valley Parkway received a
complex of comparable size to the 2525 Main project. Result? Nightmarish traffic and everything else that
comes with it.
For anyone to believe that this project would not cause the same result is comical. The left tum lane on Main
and Edgewood alone would cause backups all along Main Street, guaranteed. I have seen it already. Drive
down Main Street at 4;30 PM right now and it already is painful.
I could go on and on about what will happen if 2525 stays the same as proposed but I believe you have heard
most reasons against it. I just want you to listen to the people of the neighborhood that want development but
develop responsibly.
Please represent the citizens of Santa Ana and ask for the project to further reduce unit numbers and increase
parking. Half the size, I believe is acceptable. Anything else will be headaches and traffic congestion for
decades.
Thank you again and please be Santa Ana's stewards by only allowing responsible development.
Regards,
Jun Tanega
'51
Orozco, Norma
From: Jun Tanega <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:22 AM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 North Main Street Project
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose all of proposed actions below. 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
Jun Tanega
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:27 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Opposition to 2525 N. Main Development
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office] nhouston(@santa-ana.orz
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: Mike McCoy [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:01 AM
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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Opposition to 2525 N. Main Development
The proposed project is a high density development which is intruding into a an established single family residential neighborhood. The
complex will begin the deterioration of the Park Santiago neighborhood. If approved it will be just the beginning of other similar
developments which will begin to erode the single family nature of Santiago Park. This developer will stop at nothing to get his project
approved including paying students and union workers to attend the public hearings, Individuals who have no vested interest in the
neighborhood and won't live at the project. The developer promises idiotic amenities for the neighborhood such as private security
patrols, which by the way has no jurisdiction on public property. It's time City Council listens to its constituents and not only to
developers.
Ms. Rocio Estrada
51
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello City Council,
miguel ortiz <
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:54 AM
eComment
Oppose 2525 N. Main Street Development
As a life time resident of the City of Santa Ana, I oppose the 2525 N. Main St development. No rezoning.
Thank You,
Miguel Ortiz
6b
Orozco, Norma
From: Carmen <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:01 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 N Main Street - CC Agenda Item 75E
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana,
CC Meeting February 5, 2019 - Agenda Item 75E
As a residents of Park Santiago for approximately 24 years, we would like to go on record that we oppose any rezoning
and all of proposed actions below:
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
Carlos and Carmen Ortiz
Orozco, Norma
From: Roger Allen <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:10 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Comments for the city council meeting regarding 2525 N Main
Dear Santa Ana City Council Members:
I am a long time homeowner in the Park Santiago neighborhood, just a few houses away from the proposed
development at 2525 N Main St. I have made comments regarding the environmental impact report that were either
mis-understood or totally ignored in the final environmental impact report for this project. I am very concerned about
how a project of this size will affect the quality of life for the existing neighborhood as well as anyone moving into a
project like this. I am concerned about the safety, the crime, the traffic, the parking, and the aesthetics of this project so
near a neighborhood with historical significance.
As a long time homeowner in this neighborhood I have seen many changes that have affected the area. I have seen the
changes from the freeway widening and the changes to business north and south of this location. I understand the need
for progress but this is the wrong project for this location.
Please follow the planning commission recommendation to deny the development agreement No. 2018-01, General
Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10. This is the wrong project for 2525 N Main St
in Santa Ana.
Roger Allen
Property owner on Bush St
Santa Ana, CA
Orozco, Norma
From: Bill B <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:15 PM
To: City Council; eComment
Subject: Please Vote to Opposive the 2525 Main St. Residential Project
Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council Members,
As a 15 year resident of Santa Ana and 8 years as an Executive Board Member of the Park Santiago Neighborhood
Association, one of only a few 501 (C)(3) neighborhood associations in Santa Ana, I am very proud to live in your City.
However, their is currently a Development Application for 2525 N Main that will be incredibly bad for Santa Ana, as the
traffic impacts and congestion created by the proposed High Density 476 unit Apartment Complex will have huge
Negative impacts to residents and visitors to, our crown jewel, the Santa Ana Main Place Mall.
Residents from north Santa Ana will be providing the City Council members this week, with over 1,000 signed petitions
Opposing the 2525 Main Residential Development and several hundred signed letters to the Council Opposing the 2525
Main St Residential Development
The area immediately around 2525 Main St. already has over 2,500 Apartment Units scheduled to be developed in
the next 2 years.
In the past year, several hundred Apartments Units have already been developed within only 1/3 mile of 2525 Main St.
Traffic is already gridlocked during many times of the day on Main St and Edgewood Rd, the exact location of the
proposed 2525 Main St. Residential Project.
Further the Main Place Mall Transformation Project, which is NOT included in the EIR for 2525 Main St., because the
Main Place Mall's redevelopment application was received AFTER the 2525 Main St. EIR inclusion deadline, is scheduled
to develop an additional:
A. 1,900 Apartment Units
B. 400 Hotel rooms
C. 1,400,000 square ft of new commercial / retail development
D. 750,000 square ft of new office building development
With all this development, its critical to develop Santa Ana responsibly and in a manner that are streets can handle the
increased traffic.
Our residents of north Santa Ana Support the redevelopment of Main Place Mall and for Apartments of much less density
than the proposed 2525 Main St Residential Project.
Apartments of 30 Units per acre, not directly abutting single family homes and not right up against our highest
congested intersections, makes sense in the north Santa Ana.
North Santa Ana Residents support Responsible Development of Santa Ana.
We want new development in Santa Ana, but we want it done Responsibly.
However, the 2525 Main St, Residential Development is proposing over a 100% increase in apartments per acre, than
anywhere else in the entire City of Santa Ana, abutting single family homes.
2525 Main St is proposing 80 Apartments per acre, where the most anywhere else in the City, abutting R1, is 40
Apartments per acre.
Simply put: The proposed 476 Apartments is simply too Large and too Dense, to be a good for Santa Ana.
The traffic at that location is already very bad and often times dangerous, due to its proximity to the ingress and egress
ramps of the 5 freeway.
Many north Santa Ana Residents prefer the 2525 Main St. parcel to remain zoned for business use, under the
Professional Office building zoning code the site currently has.
We are requesting our City Council to vote No on the proposed 2525 Main Street project, as our Planning
Commission has done.
It's time to develop the parcel into an appropriate asset for the City, and NOT another Oversized, Overly Dense,
Apartment Complex ruining Santa Ana's north end transportation infrastructure.
Of Note: As a real estate developer myself, with ownership in many office buildings and a shopping center, A NO
Vote on this Project will NOT give Santa Ana an "Unfriendly to Business" reputation to developers and investors.
A NO vote simply lets developers know that a specific proposal was not in fitting with Santa Ana's long term vision for the
City.
Developers understand that City Councils adjust the types, size and densities of real estate projects it wants within its
boundaries.
Developers will simply discuss with the Planning Department to get the latest development direction the City wants for its
projects.
That is a standard part of the real estate development, and developers and investors understand this , as a
normal course of their business.
Santa Ana is far too important to developers and developers will continue their strong interest in Santa Ana, even if
projects get Voted Down at City Council,
City Council's rejecting a development proposal because of density, size, or its overall poor fit with the surrounding
neighborhood is understood by developers.
Developers will always want to do business with Santa Ana.
Please vote Against the proposed 2525 Main Street Residential Project.
With the recent passing of Measure X and the substantial city revenue from the cannibias businesses in Santa
Ana, we no longer have to Over Develop our City to solve budgetary challenges.
We as Santa Ana residents, have Stepped Up, and agreed to higher sales taxes and have solved the budget
challenges. We no longer have to "Sell Out" our wonderful neighborhoods, our best asset in Santa Ana,
Santa Ana has a very bright future ahead and with Responsible Development of our City, Santa Ana residents and City
will both greatly benefit.
Sincerely,
Bill Bonnett
15 Year Santa Ana Resident
8 Years as Executive Board Member of
Park Santiago Neighborhood Association
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:20 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Please, please vote No on 2525 N Main
Dear Esteemedmayor Pulido and City Council Members:
I recognize that the city of Santa Ana needs growth, development, and money. Our partially historic
community cannot accept rezoning of the land to accommodate a building that will destroy the look and feel of
our neighborhood. To the City of Santa Ana, this project represents funds and growth. To us, it represents the
loss of our quaint community, where our sight lines will be permanently altered, as will traffic, parking, and
Emergency personnel response times. At 82 units per acre this is the highest density project in Santa Ana and it
makes no aesthetic sense for it to be placed at the entrance to this historic neighborhood.
When we purchased our home in 2008, we did so because of the unique nature of Park Santiago. We moved
from Old Town Orange because we believed so much in this community, that we were willing to purchase this
house and invest our time and energy and finances to create a home that could proudly be a part of this
community. Although we could have purchased in any other city in Orange County, we chose this
neighborhood for the lack of cookie -cutter homes, for the amazing sense of community support, and for the
proximity to Santiago Park. Our friends and family warned us not to buy in Santa Ana due to many of the
challenges the city faced over the years; however, we loved this neighborhood because of its uniqueness. Our
children love this community as well.
We already have enough difficulties with traffic racing through between 17th and Main Street to avoid traffic
congestion. Even though the developer states there will be no access from Edgewood, we all know that people
that are trying to get to and from work will continue to use our streets to shave minutes off of their commute.
With the increased plan developments not only at 2525 N. Main, but the entire scope of projects slated for Main
Place Mall and Town and Country in Orange, We know the traffic flow through this neighborhood will become
unsafe and congested. Our children play in the streets, ride bikes, and enjoy the ability to live in such a quaint
community.
I am whole-heartedly against the rezoning and building of a behemoth apartment building. There are so many
areas in Santa Ana that would benefit from this amazing project. It is too large, too out of character for our
neighborhood, and even the Planning Commission has also observed this is not the right project for this piece of
land.
Speaking of the planning commission meeting that just occurred last month, where they voted to reject the
project... There were many people there that were paid by the developer to speak on behalf of, and in favor of
the project. If public comment is to be heard and understood, it should come from people who are the most
affected by this project. The comments should come from those of us that are living in Park Santiago.
The developer has spread a lot of misinformation about this project. We were so grateful to the
Planning Commission for understanding the falsehoods and that the EIR fatally flawed. Planning Comission
also observed the residents of Park Santiago are fighting to keep one of the remaining gems of Santa Ana intact.
We hope you not only consider, and accept, the Planning Commission's findings and reject this project.
Most sincerely and respectfully,
Janet Basalone
0
Sent from my iPhone
Orozco, Norma
From: Timothy Basalone <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:38 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Reyna, Roman;
Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia; eComment
Subject: 2525 Main Street project - Public Comment Opposing Project.
Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members,
My name is Tim Basalone. I live at 2248 N. Spurgeon Street in the Park
Santiago neighborhood of Santa Ana with my wife and two young children.
The purpose of this email is to state my opposition of the proposed 2525 Main
Street project.
Throughout the application process for this proposed high-density, 5 -plus
story, 500 unit apartment complex, it has become very apparent that the
proposed development was hastily conceived and the subsequent EIR was
inherently flawed, confusing and incorrect in many areas.
As you know, the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission reviewed the
application and concluded that the proposed development simply does not fit
the proposed location and expressed their opinion that it would negatively
impact, not only the Park Santiago neighborhood but also the entire North
Main Street corridor and entry point into the City.
I was impressed with the way the Commissioners adeptly zero'd-in on many of
the apparent flaws in the proposed project and picked apart many of the key
assumptions and conclusions in the EIR. Their questions were smart and
direct and surrounded the inevitable stress to the area from increased traffic
congestion on Main Street and Edgewood, parking issues, and many other
questionable assertions made by the applicant/developer. Questions that the
applicant was unable to adequately answer.
The subsequent vote of the Commission at their January 14, 2019 meeting
resulted in a 4-2 vote denying the project, including denial of the EIR, the
General Plan Amendment, the Developer Agreement, and the Application for
specific Development. Their summarized conclusion was that this proposed
project is not the right project for that location.
As you are probably already aware, the many hundreds of residents of the Park
Santiago neighborhood are very passionate, organized and vocal when it
comes to protecting the long-term well-being of our wonderful
neighborhood. We are all proud Santa Ana residents. Many of my neighbors
were born and raised in Santa Ana and have been residents of Park Santiago
for many decades. They understand better than anyone how a development of
the size and immense magnitude of the proposed 2525 Main Street project
would inevitably lead to the deterioration and ultimate destruction of the Park
Santiago neighborhood. We hope and expect our elected officials will see that
and follow the advice of the Planning Commission by similarly rejecting the
project.
Thank you for all of the tireless work you do for the City of Santa Ana.
Respectfully,
Tim Basalone
z
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:41 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any
rezoning and all of proposed actions below.
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
We have lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years now and strongly oppose this project. The area is not equipped to
allow the amount of increase to the traffic and sewage that this project will bring.
Please vote down this project. It is not good for the residents of this neighborhood or the people of Santa Ana that you
were elected to represent. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Maureen and Patricia Bricken
Park Santiago residents.
M
Orozco, Norma
From: Alexandria Gabelman <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:40 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Feb 5 meeting - Agenda item 75E
Hello,
I am a park Santiago resident and I am against the project. I think this will increase traffic in our neighborhood
and make the neighborhood a less desirable place to live.
Thanks,
Alexandria Gabelman
V��
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:47 PM
To:
eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 Main Street - opposed
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhoustonflsanta-ana.ore
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza (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: Park, Carol [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:37 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main Street - opposed
Dear Council,
I am a longtime resident of Park Santiago. I am vehemently against the rezoning and the general plan amendment that
vineyard development
is requesting to build that monster apartment complex. I am not against development and am excited to see what will
happen at the Main Place.
They have entitlements for 1,900 apartments and I am supportive of each and every one of them, even though that
expansion will undoubtedly
adversely affect the traffic in our neighborhood as folks cut through east/west, that is where this kind of build
belongs. It is the right thing for the city.
As for 2525 Main Street, the Ogulniks bought that property on speculation and it is their risk. It is a beautiful piece of
property and should become a gateway
to the city. Ideality an extension of the renowned Discovery Science Center would add heft to the reputation of Santa
Ana as a destination for those all over
Orange County.
I am pleading with you, please do not agree to the 2525 Main Street development. Our city can do so much better!
Respectfully,
Carol Park
I y,
Orozco, Norma
From: dorine <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:48 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Oppose any rezoning
Importance: High
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that 1 oppose any rezoning
and all of proposed actions below. 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
V�
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:49 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main st
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of
proposed actions below.
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
Best Regards,
Fernando Posada
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
NO
Orozco, Norma
From:
J Lester <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:51 PM
To:
eCommenf
Subject:
No on - 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that 1 oppose any rezoning
and all of proposed actions below. 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
Il
Orozco, Norma
From: Shirley Eugest <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:53 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Proposed development at 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed actions
below. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2018-01 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06 AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION N0, 2018-10 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 2
Orozco, Norma
From: darcie cancino <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:54 PM
To: eComment
Subject: City Council Meeting of FebruarCity Council Meeting of February 5, 2019 - Agenda Item
75E, Development of 2525 N. Main St.
Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council, please see my comments on the Staff Report for item 75E on
the City Council Agenda for February 5, 2019.
Let me begin by stating my strong opposition to the development proposed at 2525 N. Main Street, now
referred to as "The Addington." This project is too large, too dense, and entirely incompatible with the
immediately adjacent neighborhood comprised solely of single family homes. At the Planning Commission
meeting on January 14, 2019, the Development Agreement and other requests were overwhelmingly denied.
The commissioners wisely acknowledged the irreparable harm this mammoth development would cause to the
Park Santiago neighborhood and to the City.
I would also like to note that the assessment of public input quantifies that the vast majority of comments, both
oral and written, are in opposition to this development. It is only at the November 26, 2018 Planning
Commission meeting that "supporters" of the project began to attend the meetings, and these "supporters"
would rarely provide their full names, nor would they indicate their address. I have doubts about their true stake
in the well-being of Santa Ana or their real interest in the proposed project.
I have some specific comments on the Staff Report. I will refer to them by page number for ease of reference.
Page 75E-108 Statement of Overriding Considerations indicates that the 55 -year neighborhood "benefits
package" is subject to annual review. This means that at year one, the benefits can be removed. Throughout this
section, the neighborhood association is incorrectly referred to as Santiago Park Neighborhood Association."
This renders any agreement null. The "traffic calming" measures can be decided by the developer, who may
decide not to do anything. The Development Agreement allows for Park Santiago residents "limited access" to
The Addington's on-site amenities, also subject to annual review.
Page 75E168 Park Santiago Patrol Area Map is utterly illegible and meaningless.
• Page 75E-224, in the summary of Sunshine Meeting Comments, item 8, the developer
acknowledges that the location is incompatible with single family residences due to its immediate
proximity to the freeway, so it logically follows that multi -family dwellings would also be inappropriate.
• Page 75E-225, in the summary of Sunshine Meeting Comments, item 15, the developer definitively
states that they plan to sell the units as condominiums, thus the community "benefits" promised in the
Development Agreement would become worthless upon conversion unless renegotiated, which the
new buyers would be under no obligation to do.
• Page 75E-280 Public Comments/Community Meetings, states that "The applicant shared a revised
plan that included ... the removal of the parking structure access from Edgewood Road..." This is
inaccurate, as the access is still included in the project plan as Option C. (See page 75E-44)
• Page 75E-283 Table 7 Project Height Compared to Approved Apartment Projects, none of the
approved projects in the table are of the height and scale of Addington, nor are they immediately
adjacent to single-family homes. Further the Bulk/Scale indicates the project is tiered from two stories
for the buildings closest to the homes on Edgewood. This is not the case entirely as there is one five -
story building on the northeast edge that faces towards the homes on Spurgeon!
The Shade/Shadow impact created by the project would result in a change to the shading of the
15
adjacent homes on Spurgeon, impacting their environment, and the Neighborhood Character section
acknowledges The Addington is not in character with the neighborhood.
• Page 75E-284 While Park Santiago is not currently designated as a historic neighborhood,
the Historic Neighborhoodsection acknowledges that almost 1,200 homes within its boundaries are
more than 50 years old.
• Page 75E-284, Project Accessnotes that the proposed vehicular access is right -in, right -out on Main
Street and this would create u -turns at Walkie Way and at Edgewood. This would be hazardous and
further impede traffic.
Page 75E-284 Use of Santiago Park states that a second proposed access would require review by
the City Parks and Recreation Department as well as the National Park Service. We should not be
eroding well-established parks to convenience a developer.
• Page 75E-285 Traffic indicates that the new development will generate almost 3,000 new daily
trips. It is a certainty that a significant number of these trips will occur through Park Santiago streets.
We already have a significant problem with cut -through traffic, including speeding and stop sign
violations. This project would make the problem explode.
• Page 75E-286 Table 9: Parking Per SAMC Section 41-1322 Multi -Family Dwellings states that the
required parking per the municipal code cited is 1,420 spaces or 2.86 per unit. The developer is
allocating a mere 1.86 spaces per unit, which is going to cause residents AND THEIR GUESTS to spill
over into Park Santiago streets to park.
• Page 75E-289 Staff Recommended Changes states that the access to Edgewood Road has been
removed, but it has not! It is still showing as Option C in the development plan. The changes also
indicate the height of the building has been reduced, when as previously noted, there is one building at
the northeast corner facing the single-family homes on Spurgeon that remains at five stories. Also note
that there is a six -story mezzanine "rooftop amenity deck" which will decimate the privacy of residents
of Park Santiago. A parking management plan to include valet service has been also recommended.
This is a new concept to multi -family dwellings but there is no further details on how this will be
regulated or monitored by the City.
• Page 75E-290 the Economic Analysis states that the project will result in approximately $33.5
million generated to the General Fund over a 25 -year period. This is only $1.34 million per year, a fairly
modest amount in return for the destruction of one of the best neighborhoods in Santa Ana.
• Page 75E-292 the Conclusionindicates that the Development Agreement provides for "traffic
diversion" through Park Santiago but I was unable to locate details on this new promise. And if the
traffic impact is less than significant as claimed by the EIR, why would this be necessary? Clearly there
will be a severely detrimental traffic impact to Main Street and to Park Santiago streets.
It is also interesting that the name of the project keeps changing: first it was "Restoration at the Park," then
"Magnolia" and now "The Addington." Why the frequent changes? Why is the developer deliberately creating
this confusion?
I ask that you abide by the recommendation of the Planning Commission and reject this unsuitable
development.
Respectfully,
Darcie L. Cancino
Please note: My new email address is Please update your contacts! Thank you!
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:57 PM
To: eComment
Subject: NO to 2525 N Main Development "The Addington":
Dear Council - Planning Commission:
I am a resident of Park Santiago - 2335 Oakmont Ave
Thank you for the time spent in multiple 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.
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 developers conservative numbers, have a copulation density of over
100,000 people per square mile (Manhattan) . On that 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.
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. Please find a way to approve an appropriate development for our City and Neighborhood.
Sincerely
Giles Candy
GILES ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
Giles Candy - Owner
+
I `�
Orozco, Norma
From: Diane Fradkin <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:59 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Fw: Feb 5 Agenda item 75E ..... first published said vote for either option 1 or option
2 ..... current agenda item 75E says: "recommended action to reschedule the hearing to
another date"
From: Diane Fradkin
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 12:13 PM
To: mpulido@santa-ana.org; JSolorio@santa-ana.org; ciglesias@santa-ana.org; dpenaloza@santa-ana.org;
jvillegas@santa-ana.org; rreyna@santa-ana.org; vsarmiento@santa-ana.org
Cc: mthai@santa-ana.org; Kelaher, Selena; Fregoso, Vince; nmitre@santa-ana.org
Subject: Feb 5 Agenda item 75E ..... first published said vote for either option 1 or option 2 ..... current agenda item 75E
says: "recommended action to reschedule the hearing to another date"
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
There appears to be some confusion by City Staff as to what will occur tonight at the hearing regarding 2525
N. Main Street. Not sure what's going down..... but it doesn't feel right as there are conflicting
recommendations for item 75E.
In any event, I will voice my objection to the proposed project. As stewards for responsible development for
our City, you may have an opportunity to respectfully deny the project as proposed by the applicant and deny
the staff's proposal as well.
The size of the proposed project, a modern and blocky 5 story building surrounding an 8 story parking
structure, is incompatible and not neighborly to the historic neighborhood of Park Santiago.
This proposed project is too dense and too intense for the location and needs to be redesigned in order to be
more seamlessly compatible with the historic Park Santiago neighborhood.
The proposed project is contiguous to single family residential on 2 out of the 4 sides and only one side fronts
Main Street.
All the proposed multi -family projects north of the 5 fwy along Main Street and also along Town and Country
and those already built in this area are either adjacent to retail, office or the freeway..... NONE are adjacent to
single family residential.
The approximate number of current and proposed multi -family units within a 1/4 mile of this proposed project
is close to 5,000 units!!!!
And finally, the proposed "Special District" zoning is in direct violation to the goals in which it is trying to
achieve..... specifically:
Section 41-593.1. - Purpose and Intent
E
Paragraph 1 ...... Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good
design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual
improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on proper planning and
development of adjacent and nearby properties."
Paragraph 4 ...... Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method
to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and
improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan
for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved."
The proposed project at 2525 N. Main Street is not protecting or enhancing the value of our neighborhood of
Park Santiago as it is too dense and too intense at this location.
I know you'll do what's right for our City, its citizens and the residents of historic Park Santiago and deny the
proposed project as presented by both the applicant and the staff.
Lastly, I believe it would be beneficial for all parties involved ... the developer, the City and the residents of Park
Santiago ... to work together to agree on a use and design that is right and proper given the physical site
constraints as well as the potential opportunities at this location.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago Resident
Orozco, Norma
From:
Kelly Medina <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:05 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Fw: 2525 N Main St.
On Tuesday, February 5,2019,12:55 PM, Kelly Medina < wrote:
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
I understand that tonight, Feb. 5, 2019, the 2525 N Main St.
Residential Development may be on the agenda and that there could very likely be a
vote on whether to allow the construction of a 480 -unit, high density apartment complex.
I am asking that the Council vote NO and reject putting such a structure adjacent to the single
story homes there.
Even in childhood I admired Park Santiago and when I first moved out on my own, I rented a
garage apartment on Valencia. In 1997, after looking for homes all around Santa Ana, Orange
and North Tustin, my husband and I chose to buy a home on French St. and reared our children
here.
In 2012, we had a great opportunity to move to North Tustin, but opted to stay in Park Santiago
because we love the great sense of community here. The place is truly unique. People who visit
us always marvel at how how beautiful our neighborhood is. It's a tribute to Santa Ana!
I think that any zoning change to 2525 N Main ought to be to either allow single family homes,
perhaps mixed in with a few, 2-3 story condominiums directly backed up to Main St. What the
developer presently wants to build there does not fit the character of the neighborhood, and
would degrade the present quality of it.
The traffic on Main is already congested. In order to drive the 1.4 miles North to St. Joseph
Hospital from there, you must encounter about 8 traffic lights. If people headed North out of that
proposed project, but needed to go South, they would need to make a U-turn at Walkie
Way. Even now, that is one thing that stops up northbound traffic because it makes the light turn
red for all northbound traffic, including those just coming off the freeway.
Pedestrian traffic will also increase if this project is built and will negatively affect all that
northbound traffic since the Walkie Way light turns red whenever pedestrians cross Main St.
This already occurs when people are heading to the Science Museum there. It stops up
Northbound traffic not only at Walkie Way, but Main Street, Edgewood Rd., AND the North I-5
offramp. These are all located just 500ft. to the south of there.
Imagine how that congestion will be exacerbated when the Main Place re -do is complete (I know
it is not yet approved, but it Is actually ALREADY zoned for multifamily housing, and is in the
present landowner's stated plans for construction). This is not to mention the multiple -family
housing that is already going in at the City of Orange on Town and Country/Main/Lawson
1W
Streets. These will definitely affect traffic on Main Street and Memory Lane —all located less
than 500ft. North of Walkie Way.
No amount of money paid to improve the park or for traffic mitigation in the neighborhood is
going to make up for the negative impact it will create in the general area, and to our
neighborhood in particular. Please do not allow this developer's perks to persuade you to make
the decision that will permanently negatively change options for this bottlenecked part of the
city.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please act to block the presently proposed plan
for 2525 N Main St.
Sincerely,
Kelly Medina
a resident of Santa Ana for 58 years, and have seen a lot of changes in that time!
Orono, Norma
From:
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:12 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Feb. 5, 2029 meeting
Regarding item- 75E. I am Park Santiago Resident and I am against this project as it currently stands. Ruth Kellet
Sent from my Whone
11
Orozco, Norma
From: Claude Foucault <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:33 PM
To: eComment; nsapainfo@gmail.com; Kelaher, Selena; Billbonnett@hotmail.com; Maureen
Subject: 2525 N. Main St. High Density Apartment complex
We have been living on 2535 N Spurgeon for about 25 years. Like all our neighbors we are opposed to the 2525
Main Street project but this does not mean we are against the city of Santa Ana trying to create more housing
projects for its residents. We just don't agree with the site selection which also requires to destroy an existing
building which was in perfect condition until it was, it seems, unadequately protected against vandalism.
Better sites for apartment buildings can easily be found just about everywhere in Santa Ana, some very close to
our neighborhood. Take for instance on East 17th. the decrepit North Plaza complex. There is plenty of space
there and if you insist on keeping its medical center, the 2525 Main site should be considered just as well.
Further east on 17th street the North and South side of the 1800 and 1900 blocks have been underoccupied for
the last 30 years like the Atlas building. As of today February 5th, 2019 the following addresses are posting for
lease or for sale sips: 1823, 1833, 1840, 1850, 1905, 1940 and 1950 and I may have missed a few!
Rethink the 2525 Main Street project!
Claude and Maureen Foucault
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
N
Orozco, Norma
From: Laura Guzman <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:37 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Pulido, Miguel; Solorio, Jose
Subject: 2-5-2019 Agenda
I am a resident of Park Santiago and extremely opposed to the 2525 N. Main project. I feel it is extremely
reprehensible and highly suspicious that we were led to believe that the 2525 N. Main project had been removed
from tonight's meeting agenda! You are OUR representatives! We at Park Santiago as Santa Ana residents and
tax payers expect PROPER REPRESENTATION! This shouldn't be politics as usual, this is OUR
neighborhood and OUR community!
Laura Guzman
N
Orozco, Norma
From:
Susan Semotan <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:43 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 N. Main Street
We are against the high density apartment complex being proposed for the corner of Main Street and Edgewood Road.
No apartments, no change to city's General Plan. It needs to stay a location for businesses, not residential. City Council
-Please vote No to this dense project. Protect our City's General Plan. Sincerely,
Susan M. Semotan, Steven J. Semotan
Sent from myiPhone
Lf
Orozco, Norma
From: Eric Mull <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:54 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Pulido, Miguel; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Reyna, Roman;
Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia
Subject: 2525 Main St
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana As a resident of Fisher Park, I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning
and all of proposed actions below. 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
The proposed project is way to dense for this area.
Eric Mull
Owner I Synthetic Grass Store of CA
I
Mesa East Valley Location
Avondale West Valley Location
North Phoenix Location
Tucson Location
Orozco, Norma
From: Tara Franklin <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 2:00 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525
Please don't rezone 2525 Main. The proposed new apartment building would ruin our historic district and be a blight on
our neighborhood for years to come. When you look at other old neighborhoods, like "Old town Orange", the reason
they look the way they look is because no developed build a giant building, or changed the lampposts because they
looked old! Houses don't push apartment building out, apartments push home owners out. Those homes with a view of
this awful building are likely to be chopped up into rental units. Please preserve our historic properties!
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:02 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Concerns on the proposed Development at 2525 N Main St
Importance: High
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: Buck, Carol [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:05 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Concerns on the proposed Development at 2525 N Main St
Importance: High
Hello,
I am writing to all of the City Council and hope that everyone will take a minute to read this. I am a long time resident
(25+) of Santa Ana and I have strived over the last two decades to keep Santa Ana a city that we can all be proud of. I
fully support the revitalization of our downtown and am proud to see our various neighborhoods being restored and
becoming thriving residental neighborhoods.
I also understand the need for change but I cannot fathom why anyone would consider building a high density
apartment complex on the verge of a family oriented, quiet neighborhood. We are already fighting an increase in traffic
due to our proximity to the freeway and Main St and at last once a day I have to wait while someone races through our
stop signs. Introducing 100's or more likely a thousand new cars to this small area will be catastrophic to our
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
We are not asking for this lot to remain vacant but we do deserve for a more responsible solution. Surely, the
developer could still be profitable if town homes were built or maybe a smaller apartment complex that will not require
a parking tower to overshadow our neighborhood.
We all bought here in good faith and we have done our part to keep our houses up, raise our property values and
encourage others to do the same. We deserve the council to respect our contributions and prevent this complex from
being built.
Thank you for your support
Carol Buck
M
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:02 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW:
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.or
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: Cori McDonald[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:31 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in regards to the 2525 Main St apartment project. I oppose the building of this residential project. I
have read over boths opinions in this matter and understand this project will produce a lot of revenue for the city
of Santa Ana. I kindly ask for you to reconsider this project, not from a revenue perspective, but like it was
being built in your own backyard. How would it affect your daily commute? Access for emergency vehicles to
reach you in the event of life threatening situations. The safety of your kids playing in the neighborhood streets?
Electricity outages in summer? Overflow parking in front of your home? More air and noise pollution. The list
goes on and on. I believe there are much better uses for this property. Uses that wouldn't snake such a negative
impact on our beautiful neighborhood.
I see many vacant/abandonded buildings in Santa Ana that if torn down and recreated could make Santa Ana a
more desirable city to live in. Park Santiago and Floral Park are already highly sought out neighborhoods for
new residents. It would be very sad to see my neighbors move out of the area and prices of homes plumet due to
the 2525 Main St project. I have already seen alot of long time residents move because of the anticipation of
this massive project. Very sad to see all the changes. I am really disappointed in my city council for even
considering this project as a possibility.
Please submit my request to oppose this project.
Thank you,
Corinne McDonald
Park Santiago Resident
Pal
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:03 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Proposed 2525 Main Project
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza [ 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: Alison Stanley [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 1:58 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Proposed 2525 Main Project
I am completely OPPOSED.
Thank you for voting no.
Alison Stanley, Ph.D.
Will
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Justin Wilson <j.wilson@uci.edu>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:03 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 N. Main - Opposed
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana,
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed actions below:
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
Justin Wilson
Assistant Women's Basketball Coach
http://www.ucirvinesports.com
L-10C.I. IRVINE'
OBASKETBALL
■
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:04 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: No on 2525 Main
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office) nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.52.00 120 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: Angelina Lopez[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:57 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: No on 2525 Main
Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido,
I am a Santa Ana resident and community supporter who is strongly opposed to the proposed building
development at 2525 Main.
Thank you,
Angelina Lopez
ion
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:05 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.
From: Kelly Medina [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:55 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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N Main St.
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
I understand that tonight, Feb. 5, 2019, the 2525 N Main St.
Residential Development may be on the agenda and that there could very likely be a vote on whether to allow
the construction of a 480 -unit, high density apartment complex.
I am asking that the Council vote NO and reject putting such a structure adjacent to the single story homes
there.
Even in childhood I admired Park Santiago and when I first moved out on my own, I rented a garage apartment
on Valencia. In 1997, after looking for homes all around Santa Ana, Orange and North Tustin, my husband and
I chose to buy a home on French St. and reared our children here.
In 2012, we had a great opportunity to move to North Tustin, but opted to stay in Park Santiago because we
love the great sense of community here. The place is truly unique. People who visit us always marvel at how
how beautiful our neighborhood is. It's a tribute to Santa Ana!
0 r
I think that any zoning change to 2525 N Main ought to be to either allow single family homes, perhaps mixed
in with a few, 2-3 story condominiums directly backed up to Main St. What the developer presently wants to
build there does not fit the character of the neighborhood, and would degrade the present quality of it.
The traffic on Main is already congested. In order to drive the 1.4 miles North to St. Joseph Hospital from there,
you must encounter about 8 traffic lights. If people headed North out of that proposed project, but needed to go
South, they would need to make a U-turn at Walkie Way. Even now, that is one thing that stops up northbound
traffic because it makes the light turn red for all northbound traffic, including those just coming off the
freeway.
Pedestrian traffic will also increase if this project is built and will negatively affect all that northbound traffic
since the Walkie Way light turns red whenever pedestrians cross Main St. This already occurs when people are
heading to the Science Museum there. It stops up Northbound traffic not only at Walkie Way, but Main Street,
Edgewood Rd., AND the North I-5 offramp. These are all located just 500ft. to the south of there.
Imagine how that congestion will be exacerbated when the Main Place re -do is complete (I know it is not yet
approved, but it Is actually ALREADY zoned for multifamily housing, and is in the present landowner's stated
plans for construction). This is not to mention the multiple -family housing that is already going in at the City of
Orange on Town and Country/Main/Lawson Streets. These will definitely affect traffic on Main Street and
Memory Lane —all located less than 500ft. North of Walkie Way.
No amount of money paid to improve the park or for traffic mitigation in the neighborhood is going to make up
for the negative impact it will create in the general area, and to our neighborhood in particular. Please do not
allow this developer's perks to persuade you to make the decision that will permanently negatively change
options for this bottlenecked part of the city.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please act to block the presently proposed plan for 2525 N
Main St.
Sincerely,
Kelly Medina
a resident of Santa Ana for 58 years, and have seen a lot of changes in that time!
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:05 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices rihouston(casanta-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: Lenette Wardinski [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:53 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main
Dear Mayor Pulido,
I will be in attendance at tonight's meeting and am hoping you WILL BE respecting the Planning Commission's
DENIAL of this project in unison with your appointee, Mark McLoughlin,
Respectfully,
Lenette J. Wardinski
19 -year Resident of Santa Ana
E
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:05 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main Street
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: Fernando Posada [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:52 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main Street
Dear Mr. Pulido Major of the City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Park Santiago I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of
proposed actions below.
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
Best Regards,
Fernando Posada
Sent from my iPhone
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:05 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Opposition to Density of 2525 Main Street Development
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston ] Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.om
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: Megan Flanagan[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:51 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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; Verino, Lynette <Iverino@santa-
ana.org>; Nguyen, Ken <I<nguyen20@santa-ana.org>; Contreras -Leo, Cynthia <ccontreras-leo@santa-ana.org>;
McLoughlin, Mark <mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Opposition to Density of 2525 Main Street Development
Hello Santa Ana Council Member and Commissioners,
I have been informed by my neighbors that City Council will be holding a meeting tonight regarding the
development on 2525 Main Street.
I work in Laguna Beach and cannot attend meetings that begin prior to 6pm, unfortunately. I want to stand with
my neighbors in opposition of the Density of the proposed development.
I support development of the site in some form to transform the area that has been neglected and encouraging
homeless for some time now.
However, it should be clear that the density and construction type proposed is not appropriate or suited to this
location.
This construction will have a serious impact on our already insufficient freeways and infrastructure. Even just
50 additional people trying to join the 5 freeway south at lam will have a major impact on traffic, let alone the
possible hundreds of new commuters.
There is never enough parking allowed for apartment developments. My heart goes out to the original
homeowners that will suddenly after 60+ years of quite streets have to fight to park in front of their own homes.
The free-standing parking structure proposed by the developer is horrendous. Imagine an 8 story solid concrete
wall being constructed on the back side of your single family lot. Insensitive and inappropriate design at best.
I am excited for the continued development of Santa Ana as a whole and believe in the future here. Please
reconsider the re -zoning of this lot and support the Park Santiago community.
Thank you and best regards,
■=
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:05 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main Street
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.ora
714.447.5200 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: Park, Carol [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:33 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main Street
Mayor Pulido,
I am a longtime resident of Park Santiago. I am vehemently against the rezoning and the general plan amendment that
vineyard development
is requesting to build that monster apartment complex. I am not against development and am excited to see what will
happen at the Main Place.
They have entitlements for 1,900 apartments and I am supportive of each and every one of them, even though that
expansion will undoubtedly
adversely affect the traffic in our neighborhood as folks cut through east/west, that is where this kind of build
belongs. It is the right thing for the city.
As for 2525 Main Street, the Ogulniks bought that property on speculation and it is their risk. It is a beautiful piece of
property and should become a gateway
to the city. Ideality an extension of the renowned Discovery Science Center would add heft to the reputation of Santa
Ana as a destination for those all over
Orange County.
I am pleading with you, please do not agree to the 2525 Main Street development. Our city can do so much better. I
voted for you and am hoping
that you have the vision to take this city to the next level!
Please make us proud,
Respectfully,
Carol Park
�21
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:06 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Opposition to Zone change, 2525 Main
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: Mark Ang. [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:28 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Opposition to Zone change, 2525 Main
Dear Mayor,
I am a 32+ year resident of Park Santiago and I strongly oppose the proposed zone change and building of
apartments
at 2525 Main Street.
Pamela Angell
�3
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:06 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO 2525 N MAIN STREET - CC AGENDA ITEM 75E
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: Carmen [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 12:17 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>; rreyna@santal-ana.org; Villegas,
Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO 2525 N MAIN STREET - CC AGENDA ITEM 75E
Mayor, City Council Members and the City of Santa Ana,
RE: CC Meeting February 5, 2019 - Agenda Item 75E
Please be advised that as a residents of Park Santiago for approximately 24 years, we would like to go on
record that we oppose any rezoning and all of the proposed actions below:
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
Thank you,
Carlos and Carmen Ortiz
V
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:07 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2535 Main Street/The Addington
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office I nhouston@santa-ana.org
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.
-----Original Message -----
From: Cliff Campbell [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:53 AM
To: McLoughlin, Mark <mmcloughlin@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Reyna,
Roman <RReyna@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Verino, Lynette <Iverino@santa-
ana.org>
Subject: 2535 Main Street/The Addington
We are against the proposed development in Santa Ana.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pat and Cliff Campbell
Park Santiago residents
Sent from my iPhone
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:07 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THE 2525 MAIN ST PROJECT
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: Art Mendelsohn[
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:47 AM
To: Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@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:
Subject: I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THE 2525 MAIN ST PROJECT
Mr Mayor and City Council Members,
As a 25 year resident of the Park Santiago neighborhood I am writing this email to urge you to vote no tonight
on the unreasonable development and rezoning at 2525 N Main Street. There are so many reasons for this but
here are a few:
Traffic - The traffic at this part of Main Street is terrible as it is. If you add 1000 new cars to the peak times of
morning and evening commute it will become impossible. The development calls for only two exits from the
proposed parking structure, both on Main Street within 100 feet of each other. The traffic on Main Street
backs up in both directions at commute times as it is now. How do you think it will be when you add 1000 cars
to the mix? And what about the residents of the proposed apartment building? Their efforts to leave at the
same time will cause traffic to be snarled on all levels of the proposed parking structure. By the way, the
traffic reports presented at the Planning Commission meeting on January 14th downgraded the parking
grade for traffic on Main Street from a current "A" (a grade us residents of Park Santiago dispute) to a "D"
during commute hours. How much more do you think that will be impacted by the Main Place Development
just a few hundred yards up Main that will include 1900 new apartments?
Parking - The proposed parking structure barely accounts for two cars per household. We all know that just
about everyone of driving age has a car. Especially the ones who can afford "Luxury" apartments (more on
that below). That means that there will be an overflow of additional household cars and "guest" cars. There's
f1
no parking on Main Street or La Veta. So where will they park? They will be stretched out for blocks in every
direction on our streets in Park Santiago.
The Myth of Affordable Housing - At the Planning Commission meeting on January 14th, the developer of the
2525 project had person after person, most of them paid for by the developer and not Santa Ana residents,
talk about how Santa Ana need more affordable housing. There is nothing "affordable" about this project. The
rents for these units go from $1800.00 per month for a studio apartment to $3800.00 per month for the
largest apartment. That's more a month than I pay for my mortgage. There is no way the "students" that
spoke at the January 14th Planning Commission meeting in support of "affordable" housing could afford to
live there.
The Redevelopment of Main Place Mall - With 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 proposed for this site just a
few hundred yards up Main Street, there is no way the streets in the area can handle the additional traffic
of the 2525 Main project. The Main Place development calls for "affordable" units. The 2525 Main project
does not. By the way, all of the studies and research presented by the developer at the January 14th Planning
Commission did not include the Main Place development in its impact reports.
I must say that the City of Santa Ana could not have chosen a worse place for this project. We in the
neighborhood understand that the property will be developed. We just ask that the development be within
current zoning laws for the area. Also, since when is it acceptable for a developer to brazenly organize and
pay people, many who have nothing to do with Santa Ana, to read from scripts of support during Planning
Commission or City Council meetings as this developer has done? Why is it OK for this developer to attempt
to bribe people in the Park Santiago neighborhood with home repairs and upgrades to secure their
cooperation? Why is it OK for members of the planning commission, and possibly the City Council, to vote
on this project when certain members are currently under investigation for accepting money from this
developer? A sad day for all involved if this project is passed. Therefore I ask that you follow to the "No" vote
of the Planning Commission and vote no to this project.
NO TO REZONING 2525 N MAIN STREET
Art Mendelsohn
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Diana Espinoza <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:12 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
NO on 2525 Main
Dear City Council and City of Santa Ana
As a resident of Santa Ana I would like to go on record that I oppose any rezoning and all of proposed actions
below.
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
Diana Espinoza
�� 1
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Lindsay Thompson <
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:22 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 N. Main project
City Council,
My wife and I are strongly opposed to the development being proposed at 2525 Main. The project will severely
impact the Park Santiago neighborhood. My wife and I moved to Park Santiago 5 years ago because of the
vintage properties and the middle -America feel of the community. The impact of traffic, congestion, and noise
will negatively affect home values and quality of life. I am not opposed to development in Santa Ana, but this
project is not appropriate for the area. Please vote against this project.
Sincerely,
Lindsay & Bonnie Thompson
Santa Ana, CA.
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Barraza, Eric
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:36 PM
To:
Cori McDonald
Subject:
RE:
Hello Cori,
On behalf of the City Manager and City Council, thank you for sharing your comments with the City. They have been
forwarded to the City Councilfor their review and consideration.
For future reference, feel free to send public comments related to items on the agenda directly to eCommcnt(d),santa-
ana.org.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly.
Best Regards,
Eric Barraza ) Management Intern
City Manager's Office City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701
Direct(714) 640-9788 I ebarraza5C@santa-ana.ora
From: Cori McDonald <
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 1:31 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in regards to the 2525 Main St apartment project. I oppose the building of this residential project. I
have read over boths opinions in this matter and understand this project will produce a lot of revenue for the city
of Santa Ana. I kindly ask for you to reconsider this project, not from a revenue perspective, but like it was
being built in your own backyard. How would it affect your daily commute? Access for emergency vehicles to
reach you in the event of life threatening situations. The safety of your kids playing in the neighborhood streets?
Electricity outages in summer? Overflow parking in front of your home? More air and noise pollution. The list
goes on and on. I believe there are much better uses for this property. Uses that wouldn't make such a negative
impact on our beautiful neighborhood.
I see many vacant/abandonded buildings in Santa Ana that if torn down and recreated could make Santa Ana a
more desirable city to live in. Park Santiago and Floral Park are already highly sought out neighborhoods for
new residents. It would be very sad to see my neighbors move out of the area and prices of homes plumet due to
the 2525 Main St project. I have already seen alot of long time residents move because of the anticipation of
this massive project. Very sad to see all the changes. I am really disappointed in my city council for even
considering this project as a possibility.
Please submit my request to oppose this project.
Thank you,
9q
Corinne McDonald
Park Santiago Resident
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:03 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main proposed 500 unit apartment block
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: Phil Schaefer [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 2:59 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>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>; Neal, Candida
<cneal@santa-ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince <VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Kelaher, Selena <skelaher@santa-
ana.org>; Alberta Christy <Adchristy@aol.com>; TimRush@Bhhscaprops.com; Mike O'Valle
<movalle2000@yahoo.com>; Dale Helvig<helvig_denny@msn.com>
Subject: 2525 Main proposed 500 unit apartment block
Honorable Mayor and council members,
I am writing against this project and to voice my concern over this massive block sitting in the back yards of
Park Santiago residents.
My degrees are in Architecture with an emphasis in urban design. We were taught that a new project should
uplift it's context, not suppress it. This project will irreversibly damage the fabric of Park Santiago and lower
the property values in one of the best Santa Ana neighborhoods. Do you want to be responsible for that?
The builder has not made a real effort to work with the neighborhood but has consistently pushed for a bigger
project than any other project adjacent to a single family neighborhood in Santa Ana.
Let me say as a local Realtor that I am pro private property rights and pro housing. I understand the Main
street side is an ideal location for higher density development however 2 sides of this project back to single
family homes. Perhaps the developer should go back to the drawing board and consider another option with
100
much lower density. I have some ideas about creating a real buffer between this project and the existing
neighborhood ( not the proposed "fire lane").
Perhaps a better use of this land would be for sale units aimed toward a mix of first time buyers and workforce
housing. In light of the nearby large scale existing and proposed apartments across the park and at Main place.
In my opinion we have plenty of apartments but are sorely lacking entry level housing. The massive millennial
generation is just beginning to buy their first homes and need some where near jobs and transportation where
they can get started in the home ownership cycle we have all benefited from.
Reasons to turn down this project:
1. unreasonably high density
2. view destruction of existing homeowners/voters 3. esthetically unpleasing and incompatible 4. unproven
need for this project vs other uses 5. damaging to a neighborhood filled with historic homes 6. Massive
shadow everyday across Park Santiago
Pleas ask yourself it you would want this in your own back yard?
PHIL SCHAEFER
Realtor
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Linda Koepsell <
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:33 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 Main Street Project
We oppose this project.
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From:
Joshua Sherman <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:34 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 main
I wanted to let the city know that i oppose the Vinyard development at 2525 main st. It is not a good fit for the
neighborhood and is way to dense and big next to single family homes.
Joshua
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Karyn Igar <
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:53 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item 75E- no on 2525 N. Main Dense Housing and Zone Change
Dear Council Members- I urge City Council to join Planning Commission in denying the developers request to
change the zoning at 2525 N. Main in order to build a gigantic above market rate apartment complex. 2525 N.
Main is bordered on 2 sides by a single family residential neighborhood with a density of 7 dwelling units per
acre. The developer is asking for an unprecedented 81 dwelling units per acre adjacent to a single family
neighborhood. There is no precedent anywhere for this type of density adjacent to single family
homes. Planning commission saw that this is bad for Santa Ana; I hope City Council sees that too. There are
already 3000 units of new market rate housing available or planned for area between the 5 and 22. The
developer's plan for 2525 N. Main doesn't help housing, housing affordability or anything except the
developer.
Thank you,
Karyn Igar
Santa Ana
1013
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma
From: Marisol De La Torre <
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:57 PM
To: eComment
Subject: No to project 2525
Our family opposes the building of high density apartments so close to our neighborhoods. Help keep our
children and neighbors safe. No to project 2525
Thank you,
Castillo Family
Sent from my Phone
IN
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
IC
Michael O'Valle <
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 6:05 PM
eComment
Fwd: Letter of Opposition to 2525 N. Main St Project
From: "Michael O'Valle" <
Date: February 5, 2019 at 5:11:40 PM PST
To: City Council <citycc uncilgsanta-ana.org>, Mayor Miguel Pulido <mpulido(&santa-
ana.org>, Ward 1 - Vicente Sarmiento <vsannientona-,santa-ana.org>, Ward 2 - David Penaloza
<dpenaloza@santa-ana.org>, Ward 3 - Jose Solorio <JSolorio cr,santa-ana.org>, Ward 4 -
Roman Reyna <rre nnaana,santa-ana.org>, "Ward 5 - Juan Villegas [Mayor Pro Tem]"
<jvillegas9santa-ana.org>, Ward 6 - Ceei Iglesias <CI leg siasna,santa-aia.org>, Phil Schaefer
<philschaeferl @gmail.com>
Ce: Steven Mendoza <SMendozaCcr�,santa-ana.org>, Minh Thai <mthai@a,santa-
ana.org>, Candida Neal <cneal cgsanta-ana.org>, Vince Fregoso <VFregoso@santa-
ana org>, "SKelaherosanta-ana.org" <SKelaher cr santa-ana.org>, Alberta Christy
< , Dale
Helvig <
Subject: Letter of Opposition to 2525 N. Main St Project
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to voice my objections and concerns against this monster project invading our
neighborhood.
I have been the neighborhood President for the last 5 years. I have been blessed in my life and
find it rewarding to give back to the community.
I never thought I would be fighting for our lives against a development poised to destroy our
neighborhood. This one particular project is so misplaced it threatens our rights to peaceful use
of our properties. 2525 N. Main St if built will destroy the values and the serenity of our
neighborhood.
The developer in my opinion has taken to personal attacks and the spread spread of
misinformation to belittle and tear our neighborhood.
I was emailed by a Anthony Gordon last weekend and he was inquiring about the land swap for
the second entrance at Walkie Way. Anthony stated that somebody on City staff told him that
this was my personal idea. I would like to make it clear that this was not my idea, I do not
approve of this project, nor has Park Santiago as a community come to any agreement with the
developer.
We have heard the developer has met with our neighborhood and made concessions, but there
was no such agreement struck.
My main concern for this project is the size, density and incompatibility with our
neighborhood. I believe a major redesign of the project or perhaps a shift to alternate use would
likely find less resistance from our neighborhood.
I hear the word Nimby floating around a lot, we aren't opposed to development, I am in full
support of the Main Place Transformation, the OC Street Car, and many of the other wonderful
projects happening around our city. But when something threatens your life, your livelihood,
your peace of living, you have make a decision to fight for your family, you neighborhood, your
city and fight we will
Thank you,
Michael O'Valle
President
Park Santiago Neighborhood
"There conies a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular,
but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right." MLK
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 5:40 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main Vote
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: Andrea Schartz [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:44 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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main Vote
Dear Mayor Pulido and Honorable Council Members:
I regret that I cannot attend tonight's (Feb. 5, 2019) City Council meeting in which the 2525 Main project is on the
agenda. I just want to express my vehement opposition to this project. It's too big, unaffordable and not right for the
people of Santa Ana. I implore each of you to vote against this disastrous & monstrous development. I hope that you
receive this message before tonight's meeting. Thank you for your service to our city!
Humbly yours,
Andrea Schartz
\OV
Orozco, Norma
From: Michelle Suazo <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 6:11 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Against 2525 Apartments
Hello City Council,
My name is Michelle C'Valle and I am the secretary for the Park Santiago neighborhood association I'm emailing you to
let you know that I am against the 2525 Main apartment development. Thank you so much for reviewing our comments
and considering the quality of our neighborhood.
Sent from my Whone
a
Orozco, Norma
From:
gvande6576 <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 6:22 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
No on 2525 N Main St. Santa Ana
As a lifelong resident of the city of Santa Ana and a fourth-generation resident I want to voice my opposition to
the development at 2525 North Main Street Santa Ana California.
The rezoning of this parcel it's not called for and the high-density apartment complex is detrimental to our
historical neighborhood of Park Santiago.
The change in zoning and even the variation for into Santiago Park for an exit and entrance driveway it's not
appropriate for our neighborhood.
Please consider that our neighborhood overwhelmingly opposes the project and the City of Santa Ana Planning
Commission agreed.
Respectfully submitted
Gilbert Van Der Marliere
Marlene Van.Der.Marliere
Felix Parra
George Britton
Sent fxom my Sprint Phone.
N D,
Orozco, Norma
From: Bill Sornstein <
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 7:52 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 2525 Main Street project
We are opposed to this project. We came to the meeting but could not gain access to the Council
chambers. This is due to the large number of our neighbors who overwhelmingly oppose the project. The high
density of this development is incongruous with the single family nature of our neighborhood.
Over 100 of us stood in the cold waiting to speak. Unfortunately we had to leave before we got to enter the
Chambers.
Please support the decision of your Planning Commission in opposing this project in it's current form.
We have both been Santa Ana residents for over 50 years.
Sincerely,
Bill and Camillia Sornstein
\U\
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:31 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Oppose 2525 Main St Project
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhoustonCrasanta-ana.ore
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: ems1426@netzero.net [
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 4:14 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Oppose 2525 Main St Project
Hello Mayor Pulido,
Please note my opposition to the proposal for 2525 N. Main St, high density 5 story apartment building.
We already have high congestion at this are due to daily car commuters from the cities of Orange and Santa Ana
accessing exits and entrances for the 5 / 22 / 57 freeways. In addition, we have high traffic from parents driving
their children to Hoover School. Park Santiago is also a morning and evening thoroughfare for drivers wanting
to avoid traveling on 17th St.
A high density residential structure only adds to traffic glut, accident rates and road rage incidents.
Please listen to the voters and owners within the Park Santiago and Floral Park neighborhoods. We are against
this rezoning.
There are other reasonable solutions to keeping the 2525 Main St. as a business zone.
Examples: conference center, office space for multiple mid-size organizations, food hall similar to 4th Street, a
Container Mall for small business owners (like the one in downtown Las
Vegas) https://downtowncontainerparlc.com/.
I urge you to oppose the 2525 N. Main St. rezoning project.
Respectfully,
Eva Sanchez Bengar
Park Santiago Homeowner
\0
Gut Doctor "I Beg Americans To Throw Out This Vegetable Now"
u nhealthpu bl ications.com
Orozco, Norma
From:
Lee, David <
Sent:
Monday, February 11, 2019 7:40 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
NO!!! on 2525 Main development.
Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council,
I oppose the development called the ' Addison' at 2525 N Main Street in Santa Ana and am
requesting at the next City Council meeting, Tuesday February 19th you please vote 'NO" on all items
listed in the continued Agenda Item 75E . ( This Agenda item is continuing from February 5th
meeting)
PLEASE VOTE NOH!
75E. PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2018-01
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2018-06
AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET
Park Santiago Resident
Thank you,
David Michael Lee
Instructor I Curator
Coastline College
Visual and Performing Arts Department
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Monday, February 11, 2019 8:26 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Greetings
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: Julie Tomlinson [
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 9:12 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Greetings
Honorable Mayor,
I am a resident of Park Santiago and a proud first time home owner here since 2012. 1 and my family oppose rezoning of
2525 Main and reject any proposal that places high density rentals in this single family home neighborhood.
Park Santiago is a hidden gem in Santa Ana with its historic homes and quiet charm. It holds great value as a cohesive,
desirable neighborhood where neighbors know each other and care for one another. This type of well established
neighborhood is exactly what adds value and stability to a city. Many of my friends, unlike myself, are Orange County
natives. These locals all questioned and discouraged me from moving to Santa Ana- to say nothing about BUYING here.
The overriding attitude was that Santa Ana is trashy and undesirable for a host of reasons they easily listed. That was
BEFORE they came to see my neighborhood. Upon visiting, these same people consistently and unanimously remark
how charming and pretty the neighborhood is, and they love how all the homes are unique- a rarity in OC
neighborhoods. They are also always surprised that such a great neighborhood exists in Santa Ana. If the modern,
monstrosity apartment building were to go in, it would completely ruin this neighborhood.
2525 is NOT the place for high density housing. High density rental housing is widely and well documented to devalue
single family neighborhoods, increase crime, traffic accidents and congestion and erode the sense of community that
supports safe, stable neighborhoods like Park Santiago.
This high density project and rezoning at 2525 Main is not appropriate here and would devalue the existing
neighborhood. Please do everything in your power not to allow the rezoning or the current project to go through.
Sincerely,
Julie Tomlinson, MSW, LCSW
Park Santiago Resident
0\7-
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Monday, February 11, 2019 8:27 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Please vote no on 2525 Main Street Project
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: Rhonda Mojica [
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 6:35 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 <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Please vote no on 2525 Main Street Project
Dear Mr Mayor and City Council Representatives
My name is Rhonda Wood Mojica and I live in the Park Santiago community on Avalon. Although I live several blocks
away, I am concerned for the impacts to the front door of our neighborhood. I was in attendance at the Feb 5th meeting
where you were considering the vote for the apartment complex project on 2525 Main St. I spoke briefly asking that you
vote against this project. I am not against development and I'm not against building something good in this space, but it
needs to be the right thing for the community which includes my long-standing neighbors that live up and down
Edgewood and Spurgeon who will be devastatingly impacted by this proposal.
Just based on your Planning Commision's recommendations to vote no, I would hope you would defer to their input as
they are trained to develop projects that are sustainable and improve our community. It's rather odd to me that the
"staff' was paid to evaluate the same thing when it wasn't clear they have the qualifications.
The traffic situation at that traffic light is already a nightmare. The Staff did not thoroughly examine the impact access to
the apartment complex would have via U-turns and flipping around on Edgewood and Spurgeon as so many do now
when they realize they aren't getting on the freeway. If you have ever tried turning at this traffic stop, I'm sure you have
seen the near misses of crazy drivers. Adding more to this would be dangerous. If anything, I hope our city looks to
address the issue as it stands.
As for the other supporters of this project, I am a former member of the Union that came out in force the other night. As
it was stated by the Union Treasurer, they seek to benefit by this project based on a promise by the developers. I would
hope the right future project looks for local Union help, so to me their tactic was just playing on your decision that they
say will deeply impact our local city construction workers if you don't vote yes.
The students who came looking for housing make me even more nervous that this is the wrong project. I have
experience with how students seek offsite housing, get more than the recommended occupancy to rent these
apartments and each have cars that will ultimately park in our neighborhood. They are here for a short time and don't
even think about the impact they have. Frequent parties will bring even more cars.
We all know this isn't low income housing so for this to be brought up is rather senseless. Not to mention these are
apartments. Apartment rent is more than a condo mortgage. It would make more sense if these were condos, but I don't
think it should be housing at all. It is zoned for commercial office space with a height restriction that should stay.
In terms of the benefits the developer intends to bring to the project, I think our city is responsible for 2 of the biggest
items. Security/law enforcement and maintenance for the Santiago Park. It was mentioned earlier in the night that the
police could seek to get a raise by using marijuana dispensary tax funds. I would be all for it if these funds help better
our policing of this park so it can be kept nice.
I know you have a tough decision based on the other night the pro -project folks heavily out weighed the anti -project
folks. It would be easy to want to make the majority happy but these people aren't living underneath this development.
This is the front door to our unique neighborhood and the impacts this will have on our community will be nothing but
disastrous. Please vote as your Planning Commission advises. Please VOTE NO.
Thank you for your time and thanks for serving our city!!
Sincerely,
Rhonda Wood Mojica
Sent from my iPad
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Monday, February 11, 2019 8:27 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: Please vote NO on 2525
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nh�nta-ana.orx
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: Roland Guaderrama [
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2019 1:10 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Please vote NO on 2525
Please vote no 2526 Main Street. They should build house like Avery did on Santa Clara. Pleas e vote no the
project. I live in Santiago park that building doesn't belong there!
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 8:28 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main Street - unit count and garnering neighborhood support
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhoustonCd)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: Diane Fradkin[
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 9:35 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main Street - unit count and garnering neighborhood support
Honorable Mayor Pulido:
You and the council will hear more testimony on the above referenced project at the next council hearing on
Feb 19th. As a resident of Park Santiago, I am not opposed to responsible development. However I am
opposed to the 2525 N. Main Street project as currently proposed with 84/DUAs as it is too dense and too
intense for this location.
One thing I would like to point out is that the developer claims he has worked with the neighborhood in the
video presented by Pam Sapetto at the council hearing on Feb 5th. This is not factually correct. Yes, we've
had meetings with the City and the developer but there has never been a workshop session where the
developer was willing to make any kind of concession that would help garner support by the neighborhood.
The project alternative in the DEIR shows 59/DUAs or 347 units. If the City is predetermined to multi -family
residential at this location then the revised/redesigned proiect needs to be less than the alternative as the site
is physically constrained by the 5 way intersection of Main St/Edgewood Rd/North bound 5 Fwy Off-ramp/5
Fwy Car Pool Lane On/Off ramps. Ideally something around 30/DUAs (approx. 200 units), 2 and 3 stories, 90'
setback on the eastern edge, 25' setback on the southern edge and an architecture of
Mission/Monterey/Spanish style, not modern and blocky, would be much more manageable than the
84/DUAs proposed.
The developer has NEVER made a concession as to the number of units and the staff report dropped only
10 ..... this is not how one works with the neighborhood to garner their support.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Monday, February 11, 2019 12:35 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main St. -- I oppose this project
Attachments:
2525-Letter-Febll.docx
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.orx
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: John Fradkin [
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:24 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org>; Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main St. -- I oppose this project
To: all Santa Ana City Council Members
I oppose the proposed project at 2525 Main Street.
Please open and read the attached letter.
Thank You,
John Fradkin
Santa Ana resident and
Park Santiago resident
\\110
Feb 11, 2019
Santa Ana City Council,
I oppose the proposed 476 unit multi -family development at 2525 Main Street for many reasons.
1. The site backs up onto the Park Santiago neighborhood. This is a big deal and the City of Santa
Ana Planning Department has not taken this into account as much as they should. When you
change zoning and the General Plan you are in effect breaking a contract with the local
community who had no reason to believe that there would not be a level of continuity in the
City's plans. A decision of this magnitude should not be taken lightly. The current zoning of
Office/Professional is the correct zoning for that parcel as the effects on the surrounding
neighborhood, when viewed over a twenty-four hour period seven days a week, are much less
significant than a 476 unit 6 story apartment building. I have owned apartments for the past 22
years, my parents owned apartments when I was growing up, and so I know a few things about
the effects of apartments. One thing that I can state unequivocally is that apartment dwellers
have lots of cars and they will park those cars in the most convenient places to them. In the
case of 2525 Main St., this means that tenants of that building will be parking their cars in the
Park Santiago neighborhood even if they have dedicated parking spaces in the proposed 8 story
parking structure located in the center of the apartment complex. Why ? Because it's more
convenient. Nobody likes parking in tall parking structures and the currently proposed single
access "right in, right out" on Main Street will cause congestion as tenants of 2525 Main Street
attempt to make a right turn followed by a difficult sprint to the first left hand turn lane so that
they can make an immediate U-turn so that they can reach the 5 Freeway. The current design is
horrible and I question the competence of the City's Traffic Engineer if he thinks this design is
manageable.
2. The applicant wants to use Specific Development language of the Santa Ana Municipal Code in
order to change the zoning to a customized zoning to fit his proposed building. I DO NOT THINK
THIS IS LEGAL. If you read the language of this code contained in Division 26 — (SD) SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT, Sec 41-593.1— Purpose and Intent, it is very clear that the SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT language cannot be used for this zoning change. Some highlights: "The Specific
Development District and suffix is authorized and established for the purpose of protecting and
promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the city and its residents by:.. .
Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method to
implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and
improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the
general plan for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests
involved." In the opinion of hundreds of concerned neighbors who live in the Park Santiago
neighborhood Including myself, as well as Real Estate Professionals such as Phil Schaefer of
Seven Gables Real Estate, the proposed 6 story 476 unit apartment building will have a negative
effect on the values of the homes in the Park Santiago neighborhood. For this reason alone, the
Divison 26 — (SD) Specific Development language of the City of Santa Ana municipal code cannot
be used legally to change the zoning of the 2525 Main Street site.
3. The applicant has not acted in good faith and his actions have been very disrespectful to the
community, the Planning Commission, and to the City Council. It is very obvious that he is
paying people to speak in support of his project. I would suggest that over ninety percent of the
people speaking in favor of the project do not live near it and actually know very little about it.
Please do not reward such bad behavior.
I respectfully ask that you vote to deny the applicant's current proposed project as it is too big and too
intense for the location. Please steer the applicant and the City's Planning Department in another
direction. I would be in support of a large new three story Professional Office building or a multifamily
project that was greatly reduced in size.
John Fradkin
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 3:13 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main St - Professional Office & Single Family Residential are symbiotic uses
Attachments: District Center Exhibit.pdf
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.
From: Diane Fradkin[
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 2:37 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main St - Professional Office & Single Family Residential are symbiotic uses
Honorable Mayor Pulido:
The current zoning of Professional Office use is a more seamless and compatible use adjacent to single family
residential.
This use is more complementary because people come to work at the office during the day and leave at
night. This works well with the neighborhood as most people leave their homes during the day to go to work
and come home at night.
This is especially favorable during the weekend as most of our neighborhood residents are home on the
weekend when most people working at the office building are off on the weekend. It is symbiotic.
However, this will not be the case with the proposed project since the proposed high density multi -family use
is 24/7 and will encroach on the adjacent neighborhood with more noise, traffic, less pleasing aesthetics,
overflow parking, building shadows, building light at night, more overall pollutants generated by well over
1,000 residents in a very small location, etc. Again, the proposed project is just too dense and too intense at
this location.
Also, the "District Center" map (see attached) shows how all the other Purple DC parcels (including existing
and proposed multi -family buildings) are adjacent to either retail, office, regional shopping mall or
freeway.... none are directly adjacent to single family (Yellow Low Density) and that is why this zoning is
completely inappropriate. The precedent is already set, DC zoning has never been located next to single
family residential where there are shared boundaries ..... now is not the time to change that.
\0
Based on this information, I encourage you to opposed the proposed project at 2525 N. Main Street and
uphold the current zoning of Professional Office.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago
F
m
N
C
a
o
C
l0
J
C
U
m
a
�
a
a,
E
c
�
d
c
(�
�
Q
�
ep
N
�X
n
W
Q
y4y
J
n
o
O
a
N
O
�
a
�
a
C�
L
LL
L.
F
m
C
a
o
A
I
A
a,
E
w
o
�
�
O
�
Q
n
Q
J
Q
Z
'
Q
L
Orozco, Norma
From:
Julie Lee <
Sent:
Monday, February 11, 2019 9:12 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
No on 2525 Main
Dear Mayor Pulido and City Council Members:
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the development called the' Addison' at 2525 N Main Street in Santa Ana and am
requesting at the next City Council meeting, Tuesday February 19th you please vote'NO" on all items listed in
the continued Agenda Item 75E . ( This Agenda item is continuing from February 5th meeting). If you care to
take a drive through out neighborhood it will become clear to you that our neighborhood is unified on this.
PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR SANTA ANA!
Thank you,
Julie Perlin Lee
Sent from my Whone
Stq
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:41 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main
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: Tara Franklin [
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 10:38 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPena loza@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>
Subject: 2525 Main
Hello,
My husband and I have lived in Park Santiago for 10 years and are proud to call ourselves residents of Santa Ana. Part
of why we love living here is that is it a historic neighborhood, where every house is unique and different. I grew up in
Orange County in track homes (with HOAs) where the goal was uniformity. That was not for us. I love living here in my
historic home, it is a gem to find a place like this in the OC!
It is ironic that the developer silenced the historic resource commission (which would have voted against rezoning) and
then offer to pay the historic district fee. Our neighborhood is historic and I hope one day will be designated so.
Don't be on the wrong side of history and place this high density boxy eyesore in a historic district. Please do not
rezone the property. It is likely that neighbors near this apt building will chop up and rent out their homes. Not
maintaining them with the same care as before.
I am sure you are sick of hearing about traffic, but it's true it will add to traffic, on already too narrow and old streets.
Remember when the developer started out saying that it would make traffic better? What a laugh! This was at the
planning commission meeting, since they never really presented the EIR data to our neighborhood—no projector, chairs,
or microphones were working. The traffic analysis skewing the data to be within a 24 hr period, instead of looking at
rush hour. I look forward to the developer rebuilding the office building under current zoning, because it is more
complementary to a residential neighborhood and Main Street. Cars will come to the office building in the morning
while cars are leaving from the neighborhood. A high quality office building just makes more sense. The developer even
said this was their plan B. We need more businesses and long term jobs in Santa Ana. Imagine if we had a tech developer
move here. All of those contractors, that are supporting the developer's rezoning plan, will likely be hired to rebuild the
office building, under current zoning as well.
The proposed rezoning of 2525 Main is a bad plan! The streets we live on are narrow, old and uneven. The sewers
under those streets are old too. A few years from now the city will have to pay for those repairs. An apartment building
with more toilets flushing, more cars, more people calling the police, more kids in the schools, will cost the city more.
Please don't sell our city out for a quick pay day. It will cost Santa Ana more than an office building would in the long
run.
I will leave you with a quote from Kenneth Nguyen planning commissioner "I did not get into politics to go against a
neighborhood of people".
\A\
If you vote against rezoning our neighborhood will be happy and grateful that you "get us" and why we love it here so
much!
Thank you for supporting us!
Tara Fidalgo Franklin
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:55 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 project
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org
714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza (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: David Mitchell[
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 project
Dear Mayor Pulido,
Please read another response to this proposed 2525 project on Main Street.
I own a home in Park Santiago and purchased it based on the current zoning structure. And, I have lived long
enough to know zoning changes, but this change invites what seems to be a monstrosity project that invades the
nature and character of our neighborhood. I adamantly oppose it.
I watched college students support this project at the last council meeting. It stretches my credulity to think
they would voluntarily take time to attend a city council meeting to ask for this project. Also, no college student
I know (I'm on the Board of Biola University, so know a few things about students) has enough money to pay
for the least expensive unit. I am also aware that most students can only afford such a rental by housing
additional students for each room at about $500-700 per person. Therefore, each unity may have at least 4 or 5
students, which means 4-5 additional cars, not the two allotted. The parking will be inadequate. The streets will
fill with cars.
I travel through the city as a SAPD chaplain and notice the many apartment buildings that have replaced single
family homes. The streets there are congested with cars. I see multiple families living in one apartment. It is
not hard for me to envision that occurring in this 2525 project.
Please vote against this project and the encroachment it imposes on a unified peaceful community in Santa Ana.
I have been part of Santa Ana for 23 years. Placing more rental properties, people and cars in smaller zones is
not the way to develop a healthy viable lasting community.
Thank you for reading this and hearing my concerns.
David Mitchell
Pastor Calvary Church of Santa Ana
011D
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:40 PM
To:
eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main St - Proposed Rezoning.... Direct Affect to Values and Potential Legal
Issues
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office nhoustonna Santa-ana.orx
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: Diane Fradkin[
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 11:08 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main St - Proposed Rezoning.... Direct Affect to Values and Potential Legal Issues
Honorable Mayor Pulido:
The proposed "Specific Development" zoning is in direct violation with the goals in which it is tryingto
achieve..... specifically:
Section 41-593.1. - Purpose and Intent
Paragraph 1 ...... Protecting and enhancing the value of properties by encouraging the use of good
design principles and concepts, as related to the division of property, site planning and individual
improvements with full recognition of the significance and effect they have on proper planning and
development of adjacent and nearby properties."
Paragraph 4 ...... Recognizing the interdependence of land values and aesthetics and providing a method
to implement this interdependence in order to maintain the values of surrounding properties and
improvements and encouraging excellence of property development, compatible with the general plan
for, and character of, the city, with due regard for the public and private interests involved."
The proposed project at 2525 N. Main Street is not protecting or enhancing the value of our neighborhood of
Park Santiago as it is too dense and too intense at this location.
The proposed "Specific Development" zoning WILL have a direct impact to those who are adjacent to the
proposed project along Spurgeon Street and Edgewood Road. The entire neighborhood will have ongoing
indirect impacts as well. This WILL affect the "value of properties" as stated in Paragraph 1 above and is in
direct violation of this goal as it will have a negative affect on property values. The proposed project WILL
AZO
affect the ability to "maintain the values of surrounding properties" as stated in Paragraph 4 above and again,
this proposed zoning is in violation of the zoning goals.
Bottom line: Park Santiago property values WILL be affected negatively by the proposed zone change of
"Specific Development"and therefore, is in violation of the zoning goals and could cause a potential legal
issue.
I urge you to oppose the proposed project at 2525 N. Main Street and protect the property values of our
historic neighborhood of Park Santiago.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 9:59 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: 2525 N. Main St - Live/Work Opportunity in Santa Ana
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston i Executive Assistant
City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.ore
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: Diane Fradkin[
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 9:17 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma <NMitre-Ramirez@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 N. Main St - Live/Work Opportunity in Santa Ana
Honorable Mayor Pulido:
In the words of a former City Councilmember, 70% of Santa Ana residents work outside the City of Santa Ana.
Within a 1/4 mile of the proposed project there is approximately 4,000 units either existing, currently under
construction or in the entitlement process.
Given these above facts, the proposed site would be best suited to be developed as an office park or campus
like setting for perhaps medical, technology, research & development or government use. This property's
proximity to downtown along with easy freeway access would be ideal for most businesses. By way of City
incentives and recruitment, a good medium sized company could be relocated to this location and provide job
opportunities for Santa Ana.
Ideally, those working at the project site would have the opportunity to live in a newly constructed luxury
apartment building just around the corner or even perhaps purchase a single family residence in one of our
nearby historic Santa Ana neighborhoods. Imagine having a live/work relationship here and how purchasing
dollars would then stay in Santa Ana.
The development of an office park would also generate fees to the City and in fact, would put less strain on
City Services compared to a 6 story multi -family building with over 1,000 residents. Again, an office park
would be a symbiotic use adjacent to single family residential.
With this information, I continue to encourage you to deny the proposed project at 2525 N. Main St. as
currently proposed. There's a better use for this site that would be mutually beneficial to all parties
involved.... City, Citizens, Developer and Park Santiago Residents. Please vote NO on February 19th.
!z2
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago
Orozco, Norma
From:
Dan De Vol <
Sent:
Sunday, February 17, 2019 4:46 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
A citizen's concern
Categories: Correspondence
City Council members:
I have been a resident of Park Santiago since 1952. I believe its reputation as a well ]sept and respected area benefits the
city. Many people over the years have remarked on the homes in Washington Square, Fisher Park, West Floral Park,
Park Santiago, French Park and others in the area as gems that honor our city's image. They are a mixture of tract and
custom homes built in the last 100 years. Many cities are fortunate to have these beautiful neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods that have survived the passage of time and have helped establish the character of their communities.
If you can protect the Park Santiago neighborhood from poor, hasty urban planning that will reduce this long standing
quality of life that now exists in our neighborhood then you, the city council members will save this very treasured area
from the eventual downgrade that high density and overcrowded conditions bring. Re zoning will be the turn of the
corner that will downturn the quality of life that is lived here. This tower will be a gate way to the eventually loss of this
community. A legacy that belongs to our children and their children and the future generations that will reside here in
beautiful Santa Ana.
I ask you please not to vote for re zoning this area. I ask you to protect this area for Santa Ana's future.
Sincerely,
Dan De Vol
`2�
Orozco, Norma
From:
Denise Chaudoin <
Sent:
Monday, February 18, 2019 3:47 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 n main st
I am a resident of park Santiago 2410 n Larchmont Ave and I oppose the development and rezoning at 2525 n
main street. The development is bad for the nieghborhood. The aesthetics do not fit, traffic will consistently
back up on edgwood. Parking will overflow on spurgeon and bush. More than 3 plus cars per unit in order for
tenants to be able to afford the rents. No rezoning!!!!
, 2-4
Orozco, Norma
From: Plantamura (US), Michael <
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:16 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Plantamura (US), Michael
Subject: Agenda Item 75E 2525 Main Street Project Comment
Please include my comments against this massive project and make sure that the Councilmembers have received a copy
of them prior to the February 191h meeting. Thank you.
My wife and I have lived in the Park Santiago neighborhood of Santa Ana for more than 14 years. We fell in love with the
neighborhood the first time we saw it and really love living here in this quaint jewel of Santa Ana where the neighbors are
close, friendly, warm and passionate about their neighborhood. I am writing this letter to you because on February 19th
you and your fellow Councilmembers will be asked to make a very important decision on a proposed high density, multi-
family 496 unit apartment complex known as 2525 North Main Street Project at the gateway to our lovely
neighborhood. On January 14th, the Santa Ana Planning Commission rejected and voted against the 2525 North Main
Street project as planned and presented and cited the density disparity and the significantly negative impact that the
development, as currently planned, would have on the Park Santiago neighborhood. In response, the Developer has
decided to move forward with this project to bring it before the Santa Ana City Council in the hopes that the
Councilmembers will reject the Santa Ana Planning Commission's recommendation and vote to approve the project as it
currently stands. On February 19`h you will be presented with a very important decision to make. This is a decision that
I know you will take very seriously and consider the impact your decision will have on the residents of my community,
a decision that you will make in a matter of hours, however one that will have a lifetime impact on the residents of the
Park Santiago neighborhood.
As has been voiced by a vast majority of the residents of Park Santiago, we are not against development, however what
we want is responsible development. The proposed 2525 North Main Street Project, which currently adds a 496 unit
apartment complex with a density of 84 units per acre right at the doorstep of our community of single family homes with
a density of 7 units per acre, is not responsible development. It is the disparity in the densities and the subsequent
negative effect this brings that are of most concern to the residents of Park Santiago. This reflects the fact that the
Planning Department's project management staff failed to enlist the residents of Park Santiago early in the planning stages
of the project and also showed a distinct partiality to the Developer and his desires for the project. The project as currently
planned will never be accepted by the residents of Park Santiago. I believe that you would agree that a project that
addresses the concerns of the Park Santiago residents, one that would be welcomed by the neighborhood as part of the
neighborhood is the best outcome for all involved, the Park Santiago residents, the apartment owners and operators, the
apartment residents and the City of Santa Ana. In the remainder of this letter I will point out issues with the project and
with the project management team's approach and process in bringing this project to the City Council for action, evidence
that the project management staff failed in their fiduciary responsibility to the residents of Santa Ana in general and Park
Santiago specifically, instead demonstrated a true bias in favor of the Developer. What I am asking you to do is to reject
the proposal as it currently stands and request the Planning Commission and the project management staff to work on
a new proposal that will realistically address the major concerns of the community.
It has become quite obvious that the project management staff has demonstrated by its actions over the course of the
project planning a distinct favoritism for the Developer and a disregard of the concerns of the residents of Park Santiago.
As admitted by the project management's staff, from the onset this property was advertised to the Developer
that, even though the property was currently zoned as Professional, the zoning will be changed to multi -family
residential with unlimited height and density. The property currently is zoned with a height restriction of 3
stories and the neighborhood, of which it is part, is zoned with a maximum height of 2 stories and density of 7
units per acre (1-I1-7). How can any reasonable Planning Department representative provide a Developer basically
)2,S
a blank check with respect to height and density? Would any reasonable parent give their teenage son or
daughter a credit card and tell them they can spend as much as they want, unlimited spending?
2. At the request of the Developer, the project management staff made an attempt to rush this project's approval
through the Planning Commission by scheduling a vote on it the Monday (November 26) after the long
Thanksgiving weekend even though the Final EIR had not been released. This was done for two reasons, one to
limit the amount of time that the Planning Commissioners would have to review the EIR and the associated public
comments and more specifically to get this project to the City Council for a vote prior to the seating of three newly
elected City Council members in mid-December. Thankfully the Planning Commission saw through this rushed
attempt to appease the Developer's wishes and rejected the project management team's attempt with the
instructions to bring the project back on January 14th.
3. The current project plan includes Option 3 which utilizes an entrance to the complex from Edgewood Road. Park
Santiago residents have voiced their concerns with including this option since it would facilitate cutthrough traffic
through the neighborhood and also encourage parking of vehicles along Bush and Spurgeon. While eliminating
an entrance on Edgewood Road will have a tendency to reduce cut through traffic and parking of excess vehicles
in the neighborhood, it will not eliminate this from occurring. In the Request for Planning Commission Action the
project management team notes that in the latest version of the project the Developer has eliminated the
entrance on Edgewood Road, however the project management team failed to stipulate in their recommended
modifications the prohibition of an entrance on Edgewood Road should the Developer fail to obtain the approval
fortheir Walkie Way entrance which leaves the possibility of a revision in the future to include an Edgewood Road
entrance. The project management team also refused requests by the residents of Park Santiago to remove
Option C from the EIR and the project plan altogether. One would have to believe that the Developer has future
plans to add an entrance on Edgewood Road citing rationale of failure to obtain the Walkie Way entrance as well
as public safety and traffic concerns. Without a hard fast restriction on any entrance to the complex from
Edgewood Road it leaves open the possibility of a late change to the project's design.
4. The project management team wants to give the City Council the appearance that they are listening to the
concerns of the Park Santiago residents with respect to the problem with the planned density of the project by
making a minimal reduction in the number of units from 517 units to 476 units. However they fail to note that
the Developer had originally reduced the total number of units from 517 to 496, so the project management
team's response to the Park Santiago residents concern on density was a reduction from 496 units to 476
units. They also fail to make mention that this was accomplished by reducing the number of studio and 1
bedroom units and creating additional 2 and 3 bedroom units. Even at 476 units this represents a density of 81
units per acre significantly dwarfing the neighborhood in which it resides which has a density of 7 units per acre.
5. The project management team makes an attempt to persuade the City Council into accepting their premise that
a multi-family apartment density of 81 units per acre adjacent to single family residences is well within what has
been approved and in existence in the City of Santa Ana. They do this by citing 7 projects with relatively similar
densities:
a. The Nineteen0l: 49 units per acre
b. The Line: 58 units per acre
c. The Heritage: 65 units per acre
d. The Marke: 74 units per acre
e. Prisma: 91 units per acre
f. The Madison: 94 units per acre
g. Elan: 94 units per acre
What they fail to mention is the fact that none of their examples are developments that abut single family
residential communities. Google Earth views of all 7 of these projects and as you can see all are located in more
commercial areas of the city. For comparison, a Google Earth view of the proposed project site will show you how
it overwhelms the single family home community. As you can see the project management team is providing
evidence that supports the Developer's recommendations instead of providing examples of multi-family projects
located within a single family residential area in an effort to sway the City Councilmember's views on the project's
density in favor of the Developer and away from the residents of Santa Ana. The lowest density development at
49 units per acre, significantly less than the project's 81 units per acre, is located in an industrial area with the
closest single family homes located on the other side of the 5 and the 55 freeways! If the project management
2
team really wanted to provide an apples -to -apples comparison with this proposed project instead of making an
attempt to support the Developer's proposal, then they should have selected multi -family developments located
within similar single family residential areas.
6. This project violates Policy 2.10 of the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Ana General Plan: "Support new
development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area." I submitted
a comment to address the Draft EIR noting that the EIR fails to reflect the nature and character of the Park
Santiago neighborhood of which it is contained. However the project management team's response to this
comment was "The project site is not contained within the Park Santiago neighborhood.... The Park Santiago
neighborhood does not exist along N. Main Street. Thus it is appropriate that the EIR does not provide greater
weight to the residential neighborhood...." A check of the neighborhood maps provided by the City of Santa Ana
makes the claim by the project management team the project site is not part of the Park Santiago neighborhood
as a false claim (https://www.santa-ana.org/neighborhood-initiatives/community-engagement-and-volunteer-
opportunities). In making this false claim the project management team again indicates that it sides more closely
with the Developer than with the residents of Park Santiago. Again it should be reiterated, the six parcels
identified for use in this development, contrary to what the project management team is claiming, are part of the
Park Santiago neighborhood and any justification using an argument that the parcels are not is totally false and
should be rejected by the City Council.
7. The number of proposed parking spaces planned for the project has always been a major concern with the
residents of Park Santiago. With insufficient parking made available for the residents there will be renters who
will park their vehicles along Bush Street and Spurgeon Street. As evidence of this one only needs to view the
excessive number of vehicles from a nearby apartment complex parked along Santiago near 17th Street. The
Developer has planned for 904 spaces of which 150 (17%) are identified as tandem parking for the 496 units or a
rate of 1.80 parking spots per unit. The Request for Planning Commission Action in Table 9: Parking Per SAMC
Section 41-1322 Multi -family Dwellings notes that for a project of this size the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC)
requires 1,420 spaces or a ratio of 2.86 spaces per unit. However, the project management team has elected to
disregard the SAMC requirements and allow the Developer to provide significantly less. However they again side
with the Developer by saying that the SAMC is outdated and the parking requirements were established in
1997. To assume that the number of vehicles per household unit has decreased in number since 1997 is a naive
statement, in fact the opposite is true. The project management team again has sided with the Developer and
will allow significantly less than the SAMC mandated 1,420 parking spots. An attempt is made to address the Park
Santiago residents' concerns regarding inadequate parking by making it a requirement to have a minimum of 952
spaces or 2.0 spaces per unit. Compounding this decision the project management team has agreed with the
Developer's assertion that the 2.0 parking spots per unit can be obtained through the use of valet services. Valet
services for apartment dwellers is illogical. The project management team admitted during the January 14th
Planning Commission meeting that the use of valet parking to address a shortage of parking spaces had never
been used for a multi -family apartment complex in Santa Ana before. Besides, who will be waiting for a valet to
bring them their car so that they can run to the store for groceries? Where will the valet park these extra cars, in
the Park Santiago neighborhood? The City Council should not allow this project to violate the SAMC parking
requirements of 2.86 spaces per unit. Nor should the project be allowed to use valet services to meet the
requirement.
8. As noted in the Request For Planning Commission Action Table 6: Professional Zone Comparison, the project will
reduce the current set back from the east property line nearest to the existing homes on Spurgeon Street from
50 feet minimum to 40 feet 7 inches minimum. It also reduces the existing requirement of 25 feet maximum
height within approximately 240 feet of the east property line to 40 to 66 feet. Both of these changes will
significantly impact the home owners who reside on Spurgeon Street adjacent to the project and contributes to
the negative aesthetic impact which the EIR noted as being significant. By allowing these changes that the
Developer has requested, it once again shows that the project management team has placed the Developer's
needs over the concerns of the residents of Park Santiago.
9. The EIR identifies one "significant and unavoidable" impact associated with this project, which pertains to
aesthetics. CEQA guidelines Section 15126.6 (c) requires that "an EIR analyze a reasonable range of alternatives
to the proposed project that could feasibly avoid or reduce any significant unavoidable impacts of the
3
project." However the project management team's selection of alternatives for the proposed project failed to list
the most obvious alternative, development of the property into single family homes. The Developer was asked
in one of the neighborhood meetings if they would consider developing the property with single family homes
and the response was that they are in the multi-family home development business and would not consider any
other alternative. To most people it is obvious that if an alternative to the project was single family homes it
would meet the CECA guidelines of selecting an alternative that could "feasibly avoid or reduce any significant
unavoidable impacts of the project" namely the aesthetic significant impact. When this was pointed out to the
project management team as a response to the draft EIR their response was "The alternative to develop the site
with single -family residences ... is not a variation of the proposed project or allowed under the existing General
Plan land use designation and zoning for the project site. In addition, the project's underlying purpose is to develop
multi family residential uses on the project site. A single -family residential alternative would not meet the
project's objective." The refusal of the project managementteam and the assertions that single -family residential
would not meet the project's objective can be read more realistically as that single -family residential, while it
would eliminate the aesthetics significant impact, would not meet the Developer's requirements. Again this is
evidence that the project management team has approached this project with a desire to meet the Developer's
requirements over the expressed concerns of the residents of Park Santiago.
10. The City of Santa Ana General Plan currently identifies the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for North Main Street to be
1.5. As noted in the Request For Planning Commission Action, the proposed project has a Floor Area Ratio of
2.28, significantly more than the City of Santa Ana General Plan allows. If the project were to be designed using
a FAR of 1.5 it would represent a 35% reduction in the size of the project! This is additional evidence that the
project management team is siding with the Developer's requests and attempting to dictate revisions to the
General Plan to allow the Developer's plan.
11. In the Request For Planning Commission Action the project management team in the Neighborhood Character
section readily admits that the "project is not in character with the neighborhood, which it shares two sides
with, as the neighborhood is comprised of single -family dwellings and the project is a high density multi family
housing project." The Park Santiago neighborhood is comprised of homes of varying styles including colonial,
Spanish, ranch and craftsman, several over 100 years old. The project as planned is designed in a modern
contemporary architectural style which as admitted by the project management team doesn't fit the character
of the neighborhood. However, instead of working with the Developer to provide an architectural design (Spanish
for example) that would fit better with the existing Park Santiago neighborhood, they wrote it off as
unavoidable. This is additional evidence that the project management team has taken on the Developer's desires
with little to no consideration of the desires of the Park Santiago residents.
12. For the Planning Commission meeting on January 14`^, the Developer recruited, and possibly paid, a Housing
Advocacy group to have several people attend the Planning Commission meeting and using talking points
provided by the Developer, these people with little knowledge of the project voiced their support for the project
citing the lack of affordable housing. Although requested by the Planning Commission Chairman to provide their
name and address prior to addressing the Commission, most did not because they did not live in the City of Santa
Ana. The project as proposed will have rents ranging from $2000 - $3700 per month. Using the budget
recommended 30% of salary guide for housing it would require a single individual or a family to have a household
income of $80,000 to $148,000. According to the latest SCAG report 46% of the households in Santa Ana earn
less than $50,000. The project will not meet the intended goal of providing additional housing for the current
residents of Santa Ana and thus relieving the overcrowded conditions within the city, instead it would attract
additional people from outside of Santa Ana, thus providing little to no benefit to the current city residents except
additional traffic and taxation on the city's resources.
13. According to Request For Planning Commission Action Table 11: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress 2014
— 2017 the identified RHNA allocation for Santa Ana is 405 units, of which 90 were classified as Above
Moderate. As noted in the table the City has already greatly surpassed this need with the addition of 916 housing
units during this timeframe. More importantly of the 916 units, 768 were classified as Above Moderate,
significantly dwarfing the allocation requirement of 90. This report does not take into consideration the nearly
3600 units that are planned within a %: mile radius of the proposed 2525 North Main Street project.
a. 2700 North Main: 247 units
b. Prisma: 182 units
4
c. Eleven10 (Town and Country): 260 units
d. Town & Country Apartments: 727 units
e. Main Place Mall Redevelopment: 1900 units
It should also be noted that the project management team refused to acknowledge and include the proposed
1900 units planned for the Main Place Mall Restoration project in the EIR or in any of their project development
planning activities. Refusing to take the scope of the Main Place Mall project into consideration is another
example of how the project management team has worked to slant to proposal in the favor of the Developer. The
City Council should recognize the need to evaluate the Main Place Mall Redevelopment project as part of the
analysis for the 2525 North Main Street project. Failing to recognize this major restoration project is turning a
blind eye to realities. With nearly 3600 new units planned or completed within a %: mile radius, a reduction in the
density of this project by half would be fairy insignificant in the big picture, would significantly reduce the adverse
aesthetic impact of the project and would allay a significant amount of the concerns of the Park Santiago residents.
14. The Developer is trying to buy his way into approval of this project as is. Several of the neighbors who live on
Spurgeon Street have reported that the Developer has contacted them on several occasions asking what it would
take to get them to support the project, including offers of repairs and upgrades to their property. At a recent
Planning Commission meeting the Developer admitted to the plan to pay the Discovery Center over $1,000,000
to help them with their planned parking structure project if they indicate support of the 2525 North Main Street
project. The Developer is promising to spend $1.4M for park improvements, however as the project management
team has documented, the Developer in lieu of giving the City $1.4M and allowing the City to make the
improvements, have the option of making the improvements themselves with the variation of allowing them to
spend "up to" $1.4M for improvements. This would allow them to spend significantly less money on
improvements to which the project management staff has agreed. The Developer has stated that they would
provide 24 hour security surveillance for the Park Santiago neighborhood for 55 years, however with the yearly
option of ceasing this service. Also the area for surveillance does not encompass the entire Park Santiago
community, instead stopping short at Santiago Street. It is true that the Developer has more substantial financial
resources that can be used to help influence the City Council to decide in their favor while the hard working
residents of Park Santiago do not. What we are hoping is that the members of the City Council listen to their
constituents and understand our concerns and reject this project as currently planned with the request to
develop a workable solution that all parties can support.
Orozco, Norma
From:
Norma Bunge <
Sent:
Monday, February 18, 2019 4:38 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main
Please vote No on Main St project! The effects of traffic would be terrible.
Sent from my !Phone
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 4:46 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; dpanaloza@santa-ana.org; Solorio, Jose; Villegas,
Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia; eComment
Subject: 2525 N. Main Street Project
Hello.
My name is Patricia Bricken. I am the daughter of the late Former Mayor Gordon Bricken. I am writing to you about
the disaster of a project, also known as the 2525 N. Main street project.
I have lived the the Park Santiago neighborhood most of my life. Many projects have been tried at that same location
through the years. One, very similar to this project, was voted down in the early 80's due to lack of supporting
infrastructure (i.e. sewage, power availability, etc.). Nothing has changed on that account since then, therefore, the same
lack of infrastructure is still there. Not able to support a project of this size.
Next is traffic. It is illogical to assume that traffic will not increase in the future with more people coming to the area. Ir
addition, it is nieve to believe that the traffic from this project will not significately impact the area, specifically, that
particular intersection. Twenty five years ago, the traffic speculation for this time period was significantly less then it
actually is right now. Therefore, we can speculate that traffic will increase more than what it is predicted to in the
future. Please keep this in mind. Traffic is already bad in this intersection, especially during peak hours. This project will
not help.
The last point I wish to make is about the architecture of the project. This is what I will be highlighting at the meeting on
Tuesday. the designed architecture for this project is an eyesore. There is no other way to describe it. This type of
building belongs in cities like Anaheim or Irvine, not in Santa Ana. It is ugly. A building that is more classic or in the
historically themed era of the city would be more appropriate. It is too tall and will overshadow everything in the
immediate area, and stick out like a sore thumb adjacent to the neighborhood that is most impacted. A 2 to 3 story
building designed in Mission style would certainly be more palatable to the neighborhoods in the area. I will touch more
on that subject Tuesday evening.
Please consider my comments and vote no on this project. The people that want the project are people from out of the
area and city that are not going to be impacted. Furthermore, this is not the low-income housing that is said to be needed.
Santa Ana is the most densely populated city in Orange County. This is not the housing the city needs, nor is it the
area where it is needed.
Sincerely,
Patricia Bricken
Orozco, Norma
From:
carol slaton <
Sent:
Monday, February 18, 2019 5:03 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Fwd: VOTE NO ON 2525 MAIN DEVELOPMENT
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: carol slaton <
Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
Subject: VOTE NO ON 2525 MAIN DEVELOPMENT
To: <isoloriona,santa-ana.org>
Mr. Solario,
First of all, I would like to thank you for attending our Park Santiago Neighborhood Association meeting a few
weeks ago.
I was taken aback, however, with your non -committal of support for the residents/voters of your Ward. I would
like to hear from you on any past or future support from the developer - either in contributions to your campaign
or other promises of support. This would assure me that you have the best interests of your Ward
residents/voters in mind. And that you take the careful decisions of your Planning Commissioner to heart.
You stated that you make your own decisions based on traffic and economics. Well if that is the case, you have
to agree that the EIR traffic report is flawed and even the traffic engineer could not explain it. Traffic from an
office/professional building will be in the opposite direction than a residential apartment with everyone going in
the same direction as the current residents. And a recent study of traffic with millennials have proven that
traffic is worse than before with additional lift & uber & delivery vehicles.
And as far as economics, there are over 3000 new luxury apartments being built or already built within 1/2 mile
of 2525 Main. The current vacancies are many with even lower rent than proposed by 2525 Main. One of two
things will happen - either the rents will be lowered to increase occupancy or more realistically, more people
will move into one apartment which will reduce their share of the rental price and increase the proposed amount
of cars. Either way, this is a bad economic decision for Santa Ana.
Please vote to not rezone & take away prime office/professional space for all of the new apartment dwellers
near 2525 Main. Those residents will need a place to work. Right now 70% of Santa Ana residents work outside
of the city. Let's give them a place to work so they can live and work in Santa Ana. Then they will most likely
shop in Santa Ana instead of near their work outside of the city.
Thank you for listening. I do not want to feel that I made a horrible mistake moving to Santa Ana from Irvine. I
have to say that my neighbors have been extremely nice and welcoming here.
Carol Slaton
Park Santiago Resident
4628
Orono, Norma
From:
Bill Sornstein <
Sent:
Monday, February 18, 2019 6:21 PM
To:
eComment
Cc:
'North Santa Ana Preservation Alliance NSAPA'; CSStack@pacbell.net
Subject:
2525 Main Street project - PLEASE VOTE NO
City Council Members
I regret that I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow night due to a previous commitment. I was at the last
meeting, but did not get an opportunity to speak due to the length of the meeting and the number of my neighbors who
attended.
Please vote "No" on the 2525 Main Street project. This high density development is simply inappropriate when it would
overlook our historical neighborhood made up of single family dwellings.
In addition to the density of the development, there are several other reasons I believe that the Council should reject it:
1. This property is zoned as commercial. There has been no discussion or compelling reason put forward as to why
it should be rezoned as multi -family.
2. The Planning Commission spent many hours reviewing the proposal and listening to comments before turning it
down.
As a resident of Santa Ana for the past 56 years, I urge you to turn down this proposal.
Sincerely,
Bill Sornstein
(2r "t
Orozco, Norma
From: Susan <
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 8:54 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Please Support Park Santiago & Vote NO on 2525 N. Main (Public Hearing Item 75E)
Mayor Pulido, City Council Members,
I have been a resident of Park Santiago for 48 years. I oppose the Residential Development at 2525 N. Main
St.
The magnitude of this project density is outrageous. The Planning Dept. Executive Director stated at the Feb
5th meeting, per the EIR, the mass and scale of this project cannot be mitigated. the density of 84 units per acre
is over DOUBLE the next highest density residential development next to single family homes in Santa Ana
which is 38 units per acre. This development belongs next to commercial or retail areas, not single family
homes. I wish the traffic studies would have included all of the additional proposed developments in north SA
to adequately reflect the increase in traffic during peak periods. If even half of the 900+ cars projected at 2525
were to be leaving out of the one exit on to Main St. during AM rush hour, it will be a substantial increase to
this already congested morning traffic on Main St between the 5 frwy south on-ramp and LaVeta St. Too many
people, too many cars...
In an article in the LA Times, it was noted that the rental market is slowing after years of rapid growth -
particularly high end rentals as there is a limited pool of people who can afford them. Two residential
complexes already completed in the area across from the mall both currently still have apartments
available.... With all the proposed No. SA/Orange residential developments in the queue, proposed, or starting
to be built, there will be considerable competition for tenants in this area's rental market.
I support no re -zoning of 2525 N. Main St. and feel the best use of this property would be, as currently
zoned, Professional and Administrative offices bringing more local jobs to this area.
Please support the residents of Park Santiago and VOTE NO on 2525 N. Main!!!
Susan Hyatt
Resident, Park Santiago
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please see attached letter
Flor Barajas Tena
0
FLOR Barajas-Tena <
Monday, February 18, 2019 11:00 PM
eComment
No on 2525 Main Street
No2525_February19.pdf
To: Mayor Miguel Pulido
cc: citycouncil@santa-ana.org
RE: 75 E-2525 N. Main Residential Proposed Development
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-01; and
Dear Mayor Pulido and members of the Santa Ana City Council:
I'm writing to oppose the 2525 N. Main Street proposed residential development and more
specifically I oppose:
1) The General Plan Amendment for the rezoning of the land
2) The request to certify the final EIR
3) The negotiation of a Development Agreement
I live in the Park Santiago neighborhood and I decided to purchase a home here because it is
one of the only pedestrian friendly neighborhoods in Santa Ana where I felt I could raise my
family without the barrage of cars speeding down my street.
The 2525 N Main Street project threatens the walkability in my neighborhood and its vitality
We know that the built environment affects the way we live and this proposed development for
the city does not provide any community benefits. The city of Santa Ana does not need any
more market -rate apartments, it needs housing that will provide units that are deeply
affordable.
The City of Santa Ana would be giving away its discretionary approval of a zoning amendment
change without receiving any benefits to the city. We know that the increase in density will
make the land more valuable and that the developer will pocket this money. The developer is
not required to do anything for the City of Santa Ana residents nor for the residents of Park
Santiago.
This is not a YIMBY or NIMBY issue. This is about the fact that you as leaders of our City have to
develop a well-planned city and not approve projects in a piece -meal way. This means
understanding how this development affects our roads, our schools, our air quality and the
surrounding neighborhoods, especially Park Santiago.
The city is undertaking a General Plan Update. The General Plan has not been updated for over
30 years. Given that Land Use will be one of the elements of the General Plan, the City should
not make any zoning changes until the General Plan Update process is complete. You, the City
of Santa state in your December 4th staff report that "The goal of the Land Use Element is to
provide a long-range guide for the land use and physical development in the City to reflect the
community's vision for a quality of life. This element is a tool to promote public health, reduce
infrastructure costs and address long-term environmental issues such as climate change and
water resources."
As a City Body, this means you should be making decisions comprehensively. The approval of a
zoning change would contradicts the General Plan Amendment process.
As a resident of Santa Ana and of Park Santiago, you should reject the General Zoning
Amendment change and reject the 2525 N Main Street proposed development.
Respectfully,
Flor Barajas Tena
Orozco, Norma
From:
Daniel and Guadalupe Ramirez <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:43 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
No on 2525
Hello
My name is Daniel Ramirez. I live on Park Ln Bought our house 6 years ago. I paid for the uniqueness of the
neighborhood and safety. This project will change that. Traffic will dramatically increase. Please oppose the project.
There is already many housing development going on. I was supposed to speak at the last meeting but as you know
meeting was postponed. You heard from many people supporting the project but you know they are set up and
organized by developer and others were your usual political activist that just want to draw attention and careless about
Santiago Park neighbors. Please be strong, this fight is between the developers and park Santiago neighborhood, who's
side are you in? We hope you listen.
Sincerely,
Mr Ramirez
Sent from my !Phone
Sent from my iPhone
�2�121
Orozco, Norma
From:
Diane Fradkin <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:16 AM
To:
Pulido, Miguel
Cc:
Mitre -Ramirez, Norma; eComment
Subject:
Reasons to deny the proposed project at 2525 N. Main Street
Attachments:
Project Comparisons Not Adjacent to SFR.docx
Importance: High
Honorable Mayor Pulido:
You will hear many speakers tonight for and against the proposed project once again.
However, I would like to direct you to page 75E-23 of the "Request for Council Action" document under
Conclusion - Paragraph 2 ...... The Planning Commission recommended denial due the increase in traffic resulting
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 the potential parking intrusion on the adjacent neighborhood."
These are many of the reasons why the proposed project should be denied by Council. However, one item I
would like to add is that this proposed project (6 story building surrounding an 8 story parking structure) is
unlike the other projects this applicant has developed in Santa Ana.
The main reason this one is different is that its the only project that shares property boundaries with single
story, single family residential on 2 sides and is located adjacent to the western entrance of the
neighborhood. (Please see attached)
That is why there have been so many people speaking out in opposition unlike the other projects that were
approved using the Specific Development - high density multi -family zoning.
Please make the right decision for the City and its citizens by denying the proposed project on Feb 19th.
The project needs to be re -envisioned and redesigned so it can provide a win/win/win for the City, the
developer and the citizens of Santa Ana.
Thank you for your service to our City.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
Park Santiago
133
None of the EIR "Comparison" Projects are
Adjacent to Single Family Homes
The Nineteen0l
No
49 du/ac
Metro -East Mixed Use Overlay
Constructed
The Line
No
58 du/ac
Harbor Mixed Use Specific Plan
Under Construction
The Heritage
No
65 du/ac
Specific Development No, 88
Under Construction
The Marks
No
yes
No
74 du/ac
Specific Development No. 76
Constructed
2525 North Main St.
81 du/ac Specific Development No. 93
Proposed
Prisma (301)
91 du/ac Specific Development No. 59
Constructed
The Madison
No
94 du/ac
Metro -East Mixed Use Overlay
Entitled 2018
Elan
No
94 du/ac
Metro -East Mixed Use Overlay
Entitled 2018
MP/KI/DF/JF
Orozco, Norma
From:
Lisa <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:27 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
2525 Main St
Dear Mayor and City Council,
As a resident of Park Santiago I oppose and say NO to the proposed apartment complex at 2525 Main St.
This project greatly impacts our neighborhood and our quality of life.
This developer knew when he purchased this property how it was zoned. He had the choice and still purchased with the
intent to build apartments. There are so many properties available in Santa Ana to build an apartment complex in.
Between this proposal and the railway being added and the other numerous apartments just completed and being built
in future, our neighborhood can not withstand this increase in population.
The people attending the meetings in favor of this project are being paid to be there and their voices were heard before
we even had a chance to speak at last meeting. They have no intention of living in this property. They don't even live in
Santa Ana.
Like all home owners, our home is our life, our love and our investment. We saved for years to buy our home in this
beautiful neighborhood in Santa Ana. We work hard every day to pay our mortgage. We can't afford to go away on
vacations to escape because our money goes to our home and taxes. We love it here) This is where we come home to
and rest and raise our kids in. Adding population to this community will be overwhelming causing more traffic and more
stress. As it stands we already sit through many traffic lights to come home and also when leaving neighborhood.
Please understand and hear our voices. Would you want your home and neighborhood to be overwhelmed by a
development like this?
City Planning voted No
Please vote No
Lisa Caligiuri
75E
GENERAL COMMENT
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
c°
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
O
E
n
i y
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
v
E
°soH
vva\o
X01- °
u
o
�
'° 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
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 10:10 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Oppose any rezoning on 2525 N Main St
Kind Regards,
Nicole Houston [ Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office] nhouston@santa-ana.ore
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: dorine [
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 9:48 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Oppose any rezoning on 2525 N Main St.
I am Hispanic and love this quiet, safe neighborhood! This is why I moved here 26 years ago.
Please do not approve this zoning change.
Thank you,
Dorine Armenta Kethley
X54
Orozco, Norma
From:
SYLVIA F LIVINGSTON <
Sent:
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:16 PM
To:
Solorio, Jose; Pulido, Miguel; Jvillegas@santa-anaana.org; Iglesias, Cecilia; Sarmiento,
Vicente; dpanaloza@santa-ana.org
Cc:
eComment;
Subject:
VOTE NO ON PROPOSED 2525 DEVELOPMENT ZONING CHANGE
BY DEFAULT WE LIVE IN PARK SANTIAGO. IN 1987 @ THE HEIGHT OF A TIGHT SELLER'S MARKET WITH 2 FAILED BIDDING
WARS IN OLD TOWN ORANGE & 1 IN FLORAL PARK, OUR ORANGE REALTOR TOLD US ABOUT PARK SANTIAGO & THE
CITY'S PLAN FOR A NEARBY SHOPPING MALL & MUSEUM & THEATER DISTRICT. WE BOUGHT HISTORIC 1923 TUDOR
HOUSE ON A TREE LINED STREET JUST 2 BLOCKS FROM THE PARK. WE WELCOMED THE DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER
WITH ITS GIANT CUBE ALONG 15. OUR 5 GRANDCHILDREN GREW UP LOVING THE PARK & THE TUNNEL LEADING TO THE
SCIENCE CENTER. WE WALKED TO OUR OFFICE IN ORANGE; WE WALKED & RAN THROUGH THE PARK TO DINE, SHOP &
ATTEND CHAPMAN COLLEGE EVENTS, AGAIN IN ORANGE. FOR THE MOST PART, 15 & THE 22 TAKE US TO OTHER CITIES;
TO THEIR RESTAURANTS, DOCTORS, DENTIST. SANTA ANA DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A COSTCO!
MY POINT IS, I QUESTION WHY DOES THE GROWTH NEED TO BE ON THE PERIMENTERS OF THE CITY & SPILL INTO OTHER
CITIES- ORANGE, TUSTIN, COSTA MESA, GARDEN GROVE? WHY NOT BUILD INTO THE HEART OF THIS CITY, RESTORE
OTHER HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS, DEVELOP NEW COMMERECE, MAKE JOBS BUILDING NEW HOUSING ON VACANT
LAND & BUILDINGS THAT BLIGHT THE CITY, ENCOURAGE SMALL BUSINESSES. ENTICE OUR COMMUNITY &VISITORS TO
EXPLORE THE GROWTH IN THE INTERIOR OF THE CITY.
OPEN THE PARK; DO NOT CUT INTO IT, BUILD SOMETHING RELEVANT & ARCHITECUALLY UNIQUE ON THE 2525
ACREAGE, RESPECT OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. VOTE NO & EMBRACE CHANGE WITH INTEGRITY.
THANK YOU, JOE &SYLVIA LIVINGSTON
,6S
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:37 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
FW: 2525 Main
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: Brenda Nava [
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 12:15 AM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525 Main
Dear Mr. Mayor,
My name is Brenda Nava I was born and raised in Santa Ana. I am blessed to live in Park Santiago. My
husband and I purchased our home in 2009. Our entire Family lives in the city of Santa Ana. I oppose the
2525 project. There is no need for more apartments in Santa Ana. The residents of the city Santa Ana need
single family homes not apartments. The developer purchased the land knowing well.that it was not zoned for
residential. I urge you to listen to the residents of this great city. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Brenda Nava
Orozco, Norma
From: Houston, Nicole
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:37 AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: Vote NO on 2525 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:OliverArceo [
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 8:31 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Vote NO on 2525 Main St.
I voted for you in the last election. I urge to vote no on the 2525 Main st. development.
Thank you,
Oliver
\ 5--1
Orozco, Norma
From:
Houston, Nicole
Sent:
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:38 AM
To:
eComment
Subject: FW: 2525: I vote 'NO"
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: Katt 1 [
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 4:21 PM
To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>
Subject: 2525: 1 vote 'NO"
The project at 2525 Main Street is a dark spot on the reputation
of Santa Ana.
To say this project will provide affordable housing is a blatant
lie. To build this apartment complex will cost much more than
affordable housing, and only people with middle to high incomes
will be able to live there. And to pack so many people into one
small space will only cause more problems. Anyone who can
afford to live at this structure can also afford to purchase a house,
and the tenants will become transitory as people who first move in
will find that living in such a small space is undesirable and will
strive to move somewhere else; therefore, this "apartment" building
will increase transitory tenants and increase crime as a result.
To develop a strong vibrant cohesive community, you need people
who are going to stay. People who are going to purchase homes. People
who will work and spend where they live. The future residents of
this structure will become people who move here to work at
jobs that will promote them to other jobs in other areas.
Add to that the strain on the local city itself by adding these
temporary residents, and you will see big shifts in the "community"
you have been voted into office to protect and serve.
This "deal" for this 2525 Main Street project is all about money. Ture
Santa Ana will benefit from the initial taxes, but at what cost? A
rise in crime, which will increase police presence, a rise in transitory
residents which will not give stability to our precious community. And
a rise in traffic which will increase the need for road repairs and in the
►S8 1
end cost the city more money.
There is a better location for this type of residential living, and that has
already been slated for Main Place Mall, where there is already room
for this type of housing.
I urge a No vote on this project. Let the real estate speculators go. They
chose poorly to invest in this property.
thank you,
Kathy Hettick
Park Santiago Resident
Orozco, Norma
From: Castro -Cardenas, Julie
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:00 AM
To: !City Clerk
Subject: FW: The strongest NO! on 2525 N. Main
For the record.
Respectfully,
Julie Castro -Cardenas
Acting Assistant to the City Manager
City Manager's Office 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701
Mobile: 714.673-3619 jcastro-cardenasasanta-ana.orq
City Hall is closed every other Friday, click here for dotes.
This email (and attachments, if any) maybe subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such, may therefore be subject to public disclosure
unless otherwise exempt under the Act.
From: Irma Jauregui [
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:28 PM
To: Castro -Cardenas, Julie <1Castro-Cardenas@santa-ana.org>
Subject: Fwd: The strongest NO! on 2525 N. Main
Hi Julie... Albeit late, I'm resending it... it bounced back from clerk of the Court email
Gracias!
IRMA
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Irma Jauregui <
Date: February 19, 2019 at 5:11:22 PM PST
To: Maria Huizar <MHuizar(cr�,santa-ana.org>
Subject: The strongest NO! on 2525 N. Main
Please include my name to all Councilmembers and Mayor that myself, my family and many of
our neighbors in Wilshire Square are absolutely against the proposed high density apartment
development at 2525 N Main.
We have had disastrous change in zone and apartments in the past and we MUST not contribute
to more!
I could go on and on, but suffice to say that it go on record we are in opposition to this
development!
Most emphatically
Irma P Jauregui
1561