HomeMy WebLinkAbout11A - 2525 SECOND HEARINGREQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
DECEMBER 3, 2019
TITLE:
ORDINANCE SECOND READING:
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 2018-01 WITH AC 2525 MAIN, LLC AND
AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-01 TO
ESTABLISH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO.
93 (SD-93) FOR 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET
{STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3,21
/s/Kristine Ridge
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Place ordinances on second reading and adopt.
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
APPROVED
❑
As Recommended
❑
As Amended
❑
Ordinance on 111 Reading
❑
Ordinance on 2ntl Reading
❑
Implementing Resolution
❑
Set Public Hearing For_
�K•�►nl►tri�.ic•�
FILE NUMBER
DISCUSSION
On November 19, 2019, the following ordinances were introduced for first reading and City
Council authorized publication of title by a vote of 4-3:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET, AND ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980
APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93).
Ordinance No. NS-2979 approves the development agreement, establishing terms for the
development agreement and community benefits including construction of improvements to
Santiago Park, 24-hour roving security within the Park Santiago Neighborhood and Santiago
Park, traffic calming infrastructure, street light enhancements in Park Santiago, local live -work
preference, local sourcing and public art. The Council amended the development agreement to
require the owner to install and maintain security fencing under the 1-5 Freeway and Broadway
overpass and along the bike trail within Santiago Park at a cost not to exceed $150,000 (Exhibit
1).
In addition, the Council approved Ordinance No. NS-2980 to change the zoning designation of
the property from Professional to Specific Development No. 93 to allow a 256-unit apartment
project and a surface parking lot for the Discovery Science Center (Exhibit 2).
11 A-1
Second Reading: Development Agreement No
December 3, 2019
Page 2
2018-01/Amendment Application No. 2018-10
As part of the entitlements for the project, on November 19, 2019 the City Council certified Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031), adopted findings of fact
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project.
Written comments from Newmeyer & Dillion LLP were submitted both before and at the City
Council meeting. A response to the comment letters related to the EIR has been prepared for
inclusion in the administrative record (Exhibit 3).
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this item supports 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).
Minh Thai
Executive Director
Planning and Building Agency
Exhibits: 1. Ordinance No. NS-2979
2. Ordinance No. NS-2980
3. Response to Newmeyer Dillion LLP letters
11 A-2
EXHIBIT 1
LS 11.19.19
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN
STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT
TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65864,
ET SEQ.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana ("City") is authorized pursuant to Government
Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 to enter into development agreements with
persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purpose of
establishing certainty for both City and owner in the development process; and
WHEREAS, the City has found that development agreements strengthen the
public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning by
providing a greater degree of certainty in that process, reduce the economic costs of
development, allow for the orderly planning of public improvements and services,
allocate costs to achieve maximum utilization of public and private resources in the
development process, and ensure that appropriate measures to enhance and protect
the environment are achieved; and
WHEREAS, the City enters into this Development Agreement pursuant to the
provisions of the Government Code and applicable City policies; and
WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant") seeks to develop the Addington
Multi -Family Residential Project ("proposed Project"), originally proposed as a 496-unit
multi -family project on a 5.93-acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana,
California ("Project Site'); and
WHEREAS, during the entitlement and environmental review process, and in
response to comments and concerns raised by the public and the City's elected
officials, the Applicant has proposed modifications to the original proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails, among other things,
(1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and
442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre
site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of
residential buildings that would provide 256 for -rent multi -family residential units and a
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 1 of 10
#191680
11 A-3
167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 284 space surface level parking lot
with residential and commercial parking; (3) approval of Development Agreement No.
2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana ("City") and Applicant; (4) approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site's existing land use
designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and
(5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which would change the zoning of
the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93)
designation; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work
study session to overview the Project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were
received (three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition) and nine (9) written
comments were received (one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition); and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued a
duly noticed public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019 and held a second
study session to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were
received (twenty-five (25) in support; thirty-one (31) in opposition and two (2) neutral)
and eleven (11) written comments were received (two (2) in support and nine (9) in
opposition); and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01,
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the
public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48)
opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff,
the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend that the City Council does not certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the
statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting
program and deny the Project; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan
Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited
comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on
the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed
it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next
regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01,
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131)
members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the
project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it and one hundred and sixty -
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 2 of 10
#19168v1
11 A-4
six (166) written comments were received with nine (9) in support and one hundred and
fifty-seven (157) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public
and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted that the applications go back to
the Planning Commission for reconsideration after further consultation with the
community; and
WHEREAS, in June 2019, the applicant submitted a revised plan consisting of
development 347 multi -family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces
(1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4-
story residential building wrapped around a five -level parking structure with an amenity
deck on the sixth -level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main
Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project on a 5.93-
acre site (the "June Revised Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the June Revised Plan. At the meeting, seventy-seven
(77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and one
speaker was neutral. In addition, one -hundred (100) written comments were received with
six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony
from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission vote
resulted in an impasse; and
WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the applicant
submitted a further revised plan, including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with
444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential
buildings that would provide 256 for -rent multi -family residential units and a 167,253
square foot central parking structure and a 284 space surface level parking lot which
also reduced the Project's height, increased the Project's setbacks, and modified the
Project entrance ("October Modified Project"); and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01,
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-two (62) expressed opposition and
two (2) in expressed support the project. In addition, ninety-eight (98) individuals
submitted comments with ninety-four (94) in opposition and four (4) in support; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the
City's consultant team, the Planning Commission by a vote of 3:2, voted to recommend
denial of the project. Since the entitlements require final action by the City Council, the
actions were forwarded to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2019, the City gave public notice of a City Council
public hearing for consideration of Development Agreement No. 2018-01 by advertising
in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to
owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 3 of 10
#191680
11 A-5
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General
Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
Environmental Impact Report for the Project, at which hearing members of the public
were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Development Agreement No. 2018-01;
and
WHEREAS, entering into this Development Agreement would provide the City
with extraordinary and significant benefits that are of regional significance, relate to
existing deficiencies in public facilities, require the owner of 2525 North Main Street to
contribute a greater percentage of benefits than would otherwise be required, and
represent benefits which would not otherwise be required as part of the development
process; and
WHEREAS, the Project and the use that the Developer proposes in connection
with the Property have been extensively reviewed and considered by the City, and such
proposed development and use have been found to accommodate the City's
recommendations and suggestions in order to protect the public's interest to enhance
the desirability of such proposed development and use. The terms and conditions of
this Development Agreement have been found to be fair, just and reasonable, and the
City has concluded that the pursuit of the Project will serve the interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 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, the installation of security fencing
under the Broadway overpass and 1-5 freeway overpass for neighborhood safety, and,
parks and/or park improvements; and
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse
No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated between August 7, 2018
and October 4, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to
the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development
No. 93; and
WHEREAS, the City and Developer have reached mutual agreement and
desire to voluntarily enter into the Development Agreement to facilitate development
of the Project subject to the conditions and requirements set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement have
undergone review by the City Council at a publicly noticed hearing and have been
found to be fair, just, and reasonable, and consistent with the General Plan; and
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 4 of 10
#19168v1
11 A-6
WHEREAS, the proposed Project will not adversely affect the General Plan, as
amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, as is expressly set forth in the
Request for City Council Action dated November 19, 2019 and Request for Planning
Commission Action dated October 28, 2019, together with all supporting documents,
including but not limited to, proposed resolutions, which are incorporated herein by this
reference.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. CEQA. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act have been satisfied in that a Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the Project, including the
Development Agreement.
Section 3. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. Pursuant to California
Government Code section 65867.5(b) and based on the entire record before the City
Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City
Council hereby finds that the Development Agreement is compatible with the objectives,
policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the General Plan for the City
of Santa Ana in that:
A. The City of Santa Ana has officially adopted a General Plan.
B. The land uses authorized by the General Plan Amendment, and the General
Plan Amendment itself, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general
land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan, for the following
reasons:
i. The existing General Plan land use designation for the project is
Professional and Administrative Office (PAO), which allows business and
professional offices uses with a floor area ratio of 1.5. In order to facilitate the
construction of a multi -family housing project with a maximum floor area ratio
of 1.43, the general plan land use designation is proposed to be changed to
District Center (DC), which permits high intensity, mixed -use urban villages
and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support mid- to high-rise office
centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities with floor area ratios
ranging from 0.5 to 5.0. Focusing growth within District Centers and along
major corridors reduces the pressure for growth in low density residential
neighborhoods.
ii. The proposed Project will support several goals/objectives and policies of
the General Plan.
Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: to create diversity of quality housing,
affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa
Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels,
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 5 of 10
#191680
11 A-7
and age groups to foster an inclusive community.
HE Policy 2.2 District Centers. Create high intensity, mixed -use urban
villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support the mid- to
high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the
varied District Centers.
HE Policy 2.4 to facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing.
Housing Element (HE) Goal 4: to provide adequate rental and
ownership housing opportunities and supportive services.
The Project will provide 256 rental housing units. The amendment will
expand the District Center designation and provide a connection
between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site
by providing a residential development that will support a mixed -use
environment.
Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: to promote a balance of land uses to
address basic community needs.
LU Policy 1.2 Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in
the City.
LU Policy 4.3 Support land uses which provide community and regional
economic and service benefits.
LU Policy 4.4 Encourage the development of projects which promote
the City's image as a regional activity center.
LU Policy 5.5 Encourage development which is compatible with, and
supportive of surrounding land uses.
LU Policy 5.7 Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not
exceed available infrastructure capacity.
Land Use (LU) Element Goal 6: to reduce residential overcrowding to
promote public health and safety.
The Project is within '/2 mile of existing transportation infrastructure
such as the Santa Ana (1-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22)
highway which provide vehicular access to the region; the Orange
County Transportation Agency bus routes along Main Street which
connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the
Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center which provides rail service
throughout California; and the project is immediately adjacent to
Santiago Park and the Santiago Creek Bike Trail which connects to
regional bike trails.
Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational,
employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum,
Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of
Orange; the Children's Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph's
Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 6 of 10
#191680
11 A-8
and parking lot would be within close proximity to major employment
centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an
additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs
rich northern area of the City. The multi -storied development will
complement the nearby mid -rise office buildings located along Main
Street to the north and west of the site. Although the density will be
higher than the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood, the
residential use is consistent with the residential uses to the east and
south. In addition, 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.
Urban Design (UD) Element, Goal 1: to improve the physical
appearance of the City through development of districts that project a
sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment.
UD Policy 1.1. New development and redevelopment must have the
highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction.
UD Policy 1.11 Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and
significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be
provided in all public and private projects.
The residential buildings are of high quality design and include high
quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels,
and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards and
landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has
street frontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the
General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as
an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity,
mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The setback
along the east side of the project has been increased to 90 feet and the
setback from Edgewood Road has been increased to 134 feet to
minimize impacts to the neighboring single-family residences. The new
development will include public art and convey a sense of place and
contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that
includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will
be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of
the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan
identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a
Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive
architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa
Ana.
C. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the Development Agreement will not result in
incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any General
Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment.
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 7 of 10
#19168v1
11 A-9
Section 4. The Development Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby
recommended for City Council approval.
Section 5. The Development Agreement shall not be effective unless and until
Resolution No. 2019-_ (Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01),
Resolution No. 2019- ___(General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06) and
Ordinance No. NS-2980 (Amendment Application No. 2018-10) are adopted and
become effective. If said resolution and Development Agreement are for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, or otherwise does not go into effect for any reason, then the Development
Agreement shall be null and void and have no further force and effect.
Section 6. INDEMNIFICATION. The Developer shall indemnify, protect, defend
and hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all
claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings (whether legal,
equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and such other
procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively "Actions"), brought against the
City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul,
any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof
(including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the Project,
whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental
Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution,
statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense,
and that Developer shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and
necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the
Developer of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with Developer in the defense of
the Action.
Section 7. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this ordinance for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa
Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 8 of 10
#191680
11A-10
Section 8 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION. The City Council hereby takes the
following action:
1. The City Council approves Development Agreement No. 2018-01, attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, as follows:
A. The Development Agreement shall not take effect unless and until
Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 is certified by the City
Council, and General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 and Amendment
Application No. 2018-10 are each approved by the City Council.
Section 9. EXECUTION OF ORDINANCE. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance
and the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof.
ADOPTED this
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
B
Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
AYES:
day of
Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN:
NOT PRESENT
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
411W61
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 9 of 10
#191680
11A-11
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached
Ordinance No. NS-2979 to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on 2019 and that said ordinance was published in
accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance NS-2979
Page 10 of 10
#19168v1
11A-12
EXHIBIT A
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30)
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Attention: Clerk of the Council
Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Government Code §27383
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.2018-01
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF SANTA ANA
and
AC 2525 MAIN,
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
??39400001 31i319Z13 1 1 A-1 3
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01
This Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into as of this _ day of
2019 by and between the City of Santa Ana, California (hereinafter "CITY"), and AC 2525
Main, a California limited liability company (hereinafter "OWNER"):
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, CITY is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having
legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864,
et seq. of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, This Agreement constitutes a current exercise of CITY'S police powers to provide
predictability to OWNER in the development approval process by vesting the permitted uses, density,
intensity of use, and timing and phasing of development consistent with the Development Plan in exchange
for OWNER'S commitment to provide significant public benefits to CITY as set forth in Section 4, below.
WHEREAS, OWNER has requested CITY to enter into a development agreement and proceedings
have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of CITY; and
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that this Agreement is of major
significance because it 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
WHEREAS, the provision by OWNER of the public benefits allows the CITY to realize significant
economic, recreational, park, open space, educational, social and public facilities benefits. The public
benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of Santa Ana residents and visitors to a significantly
greater extent than would development of the Property without this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the physical effects, if any, of the Project and this Agreement have been analyzed
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act as amended to date and as documented in the Final
Environmental Impact Report entitled "Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project" (State
Clearinghouse House No. 2018021031 and City of Santa Ana DP No. 2017.34); and
WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Santa Ana General Plan and
any specific plan applicable thereto; and
WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or approved in
accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other
procedural matters; and
WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide
substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly
development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public
services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which
;;31)4MW 31ii31%7.13 11 A-14
development agreements under Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code are intended;
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter
contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.
1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall
be defined as follows:
1.I .l "Agreement" means this Development Agreement.
1.1.2 "CITY" means the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and California
municipal corporation.
1.1.3 "City Council" means the duly elected city council of the City of Santa
Ana.
1.1.4 "Commencement Date" means the date the Term of this Agreement
commences.
1.1.5 "Development" means the improvement of the Property for the
purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project
including, but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities
related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of
buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. "Development" does not include
the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure,
improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof.
1.1.6 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of CITY in
connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or development approval for the
dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees
in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the
environment or other public interests.
1.1.7 "Development Impact Fee' a monetary exaction other than a tax or
special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general
applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local
agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose
of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project,
but does not include park "in lieu" fees specified in Government Code Section 66477, fees for
processing applications for governmental regulatory actions or approvals, or fees collected
under development agreements adopted pursuant to Article 25 of the Government Code
(commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4.
1.1.8 "Development Plan" means the plan for development of the Property
as set forth in Exhibit "C".
-7-
i.3U, 00002 31 i,3187.13 11 A-15
1.1.9 "Discretionary Action(s)" or "Discretionary Approval(s)" means an
action which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation or discretion on the part of the
City, including any board, agency, commission or department and any officer or employee
thereof, in the process of approving or disapproving Development of the Project, as
distinguished from an activity which is defined herein as a Ministerial Pennit or Ministerial
Approval.
1.1.10 "Effective Date" means the date the ordinance approving and
authorizing this Agreement becomes effective.
1.1.11 "Existing Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, laws,
resolutions, codes, rules, regulations, policies, requirements, guidelines or other actions of City,
including but not limited to the provisions set forth in the City's General Plan, Municipal Code
which affect, govern or apply to the Development of the Project and use of the Property in a
manner consistent with this Agreement, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land,
the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes,
and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the
Development of the Property, subject to the terns of this Agreement, whether adopted by the
City Council or the voters in an initiative, which are in effect on the Effective Date, pursuant
to California Government Code Section 65866.
1.1.12 "Existing Project Approvals" means all Project Approvals approved
or issued on or before the Effective Date.
1.1.13 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes,
rules, regulations and official policies of CITY governing the development and use of land,
including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use,
subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions
for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and
construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property. "Land
Use Regulations" does not include any CITY ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or
official policy, governing:
(a) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
(b) taxes (special or general) and assessments;
(c) the control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and
interests that provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;
(e) the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
l .l .14 Rcsen cd.
1.1.15 "OWNER" means the persons and entities listed as OWNER on page
1 of this Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property.
5;394(XKK12 31;;3147 13 11 A-16
1.1.16 "Ministerial Approvals(s)," or "Ministerial Act(s)" means any
approval or act that is not a Discretionary Approval.
1.1.1 7 "Mortgagee' means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a
deed of trust or any other security -device lender, and their successors and assigns.
l .1 .18 "Project" means the development of the Property located at 2525
Main Street, Santa Ana, CA, contemplated by the Development Plan as such Plan may be
further defined, enhanced or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
1.1.19 "Project Approvals" means all site -specific (meaning specifically
applicable to the Project only and not generally applicable to some or all other properties within
the City) plans, maps, permits, and entitlements to use of every kind and nature that are sought
or agreed to in writing by OWNER in its sole and absolute discretion to Develop the Project
and that have been approved by the City. Project Approvals include, but are not limited to,
general plan amendments, site plans, tentative and final subdivision maps, design guidelines,
variances, zoning designations, conditional use permits, grading, building, and other similar
permits, the site -specific provisions of general plans, environmental assessments, including
environmental impact reports and negative declarations.
1 .1 .20 "Property" means the real property described on Exhibit "A" and
shown on Exhibit "B" to this Agreement.
1.1.21 "Public Benefit" refers to those benefits provided to the CITY and the
community by OWNER pursuant to Section 4 below.
1.1.22 "Reservation of Rights" means the rights and authority excepted from the
assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to CITY under Section
3.3 of this Agreement.
1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this
reference made a part of, this Agreement:
Exhibit "A" — Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit "B" — Map showing Property and its location
Exhibit "C" — Development Plan
Exhibit "D" — Development Impact Fees
Exhibit "E" - Development Impact Fee Credits
Exhibit " F" — Santiago Park Access Rights
Exhibit "G" — Santiago Park Improvements
Exhibit "H"— Park Santiago Patrol Area Map
Exhibit "I" — Conditions of Discretionary Approvals
-4-
55394.00002 31553187_13 1 1 A-1 7
Exhibit "J"— Safety Fencing
2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject
to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be
carried out in accordance with the terms of the Development Plan and this Agreement.
2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is
the owner of the fee simple title to, or has an equitable interest in, the Property or a
portion thereof.
2.3 City Council Findings. The City Council finds that:
2.3.1 This Agreement is consistent with the CITY'S General Plan.
2.3.2 This Agreement ensures a desirable and functional community
environment, provides effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure,
and services appropriate for the development of the Project, enhances effective utilization of
resources within the City.
2.3.3 This Agreement provides public benefits beyond those which are
necessary to mitigate the development of the Project.
2.3.4 This Agreement strengthens the public planning process, encourages
private participation in comprehensive planning and reduces costs of development and
government.
2.3.5 The best interests of the citizens of the CITY and the public health,
safety, and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
2.4 Tenn. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date (the
"Commencement Date") that is the Effective Date, and shall continue for a period of
four (4) years thereafter, unless this tern is modified or extended pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement. Thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vested right
under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not OWNER has paid any
Development Impact Fee.
2.4.1 The Term of this Agreement may be extended upon the mutual written
agreement of the City's City Manager and the OWNER for no more than two (2) additional
consecutive one (1) year periods ("Extension Term"). Notwithstanding the immediately
preceding sentence or any other part of this Agreement, in no event shall the Development
Agreement Period exceed 2160 consecutive calendar days from the Effective Date. Prior to
the City granting each Extension Term:
(a) OWNER shall demonstrate to the City Manager's
reasonable satisfaction that OWNER has and will continue to diligently pursue the
development of the Project;
-5-
;;,ya t»llu,] I I i53I 7.' 3 11 A-18
(b) OWNER shall pay to the City Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000) to partially compensate the City for the significant lost revenue to
be received by the City had the Project been completed.
2.4.2 If any party other than OWNER initiates litigation that challenges the
Project or the Existing Project Approvals, the OWNER will have the right to toll
commencement of the Tenn and any obligations of OWNER under the Agreement during the
period of such litigation. The tolling shall commence upon receipt by the City of written notice
from OWNER invoking this right to tolling. The tolling shall terminate when (1) a final order
is issued in said litigation that upholds the Project and the Existing Project Approvals or (2) the
litigation is dismissed with prejudice by all Parties; whichever occurs first.
2.5 Assignment.
2.5.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign
the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the
Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person, partnership,
joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided,
however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and
assumption of ft,:kghts, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be
made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the
Property to which such rights or interests apply. Any sale, transfer or assignment shall require the consent
of the City which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
(b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, OWNER shall
notify CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide CITY with an executed
agreement ("Assignment and Assumption Agreement"), in a form reasonably acceptable to CITY, by the
purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee expressly
and unconditionally assumes all the duties, obligations, agreements, covenants, waivers of OWNER under
this Agreement, including, without limitation, the covenants not to sue and waivers contained in Sections
7.2 and 8.4 hereof:
(c) OWNER shall provide CITY with such information reasonably requested
by CITY that demonstrates such transferee or assignee has sufficient development experience and financial
capability to complete the Project and perform all obligations assumed.
(d) Any sale, transfer or assignment not made in strict compliance with the
foregoing conditions shall constitute default by Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure
of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this
Subsection 2.5.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or
assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or assignee until
and unless such agreement is executed.
(e) The Executive Director for the Planning and Building Agency shall have
the administrative authority to determine that OWNER has complied with the above conditions. Such
determination shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
-6-
5539400002;Iii,18713 11A-19
2.5.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or
assignment, a transferring OWNER shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with
respect to the transferred Property or any transferred portion thereof, unless such transferring
OWNER is given a release in writing by CITY, which release shall be provided by CITY upon
the full satisfaction by such transferring OWNER of the following conditions:
(a) OWNER no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the
Property subject to the transfer.
(b) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) OWNER has provided CITY with the notice and executed agreement
required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 2.5. l above.
(d) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides CITY with security
equivalent to any security previously provided by OWNER to secure perfonnance of its obligations
hereunder.
2.5.3 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer or assignment
after an initial sale, transfer or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject
to the terms and conditions of this Section.
2.5.4 Utilities. The Project shall be connected to all utilities necessary to
provide adequate water, sewer, gas, electric, and other utility service to the Project, prior to the
issuance of final approval for occupancy or the certificate of occupancy for any portion of the
Project.
2.5.5 Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. The provisions of
Subsection 2.5.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any
lot that has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a
member of the public or other ultimate user. This Agreement shall tenninate with respect to
any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the
execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following
conditions:
(a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk")
sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and
(b) City final approval for occupancy or the certificate of occupancy has been
issued for a building on the lot, and the fees for such lot set forth in this Agreement have been paid.
2.6 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be
amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the
manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. This provision shall not
limit any remedy of CITY or OWNER as provided by this Agreement.
2.7 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed tenninated and of no
further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
(a) Expiration of the stated Tenn of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.4.
-7-
iiW4O1N10131553ISTB 11 A-20
(b) Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption
of the ordinance approving this Agreement.
(c) The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the
ordinance approving this Agreement.
(1) Within five (5) days of receipt of a referendum petition by the CITY,
OWNER shall deposit Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) ("Referendum Deposit") with the CITY. CITY
may use the funds to pay any and all costs associated with the said referendum measure. If at any time the
Referendum Deposit account has Five Thousand Dollars ($5000) or less remaining, Developer shall, within
three (3) days of receiving notice from the CITY, deposit with the City additional funds as requested by the
CITY to cover all costs and expenses associated with processing the referendum and holding the related
election. Following certification of the election results, any funds remaining in the Referendum Deposit
account shall be returned to the OWNER.
(d) Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement
including issuance of all required occupancy permits, final approval for occupancy by the City, and
acceptance by CITY or applicable public agency of all required dedications.
(e) Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any
other land use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party
shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been
performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of
this Agreement that has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations that are
specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. Upon such termination, any Development Impact Fees
paid by OWNER to CITY for residential units on which construction has not yet begun shall be refunded
to OWNER by CITY.
2.8 Notices.
(a) As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the
communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver,
appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder.
(b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i)
when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (it) on the date of delivery shown on the return
receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with
return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named
below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by
telegraph to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows:
If to CITY:
City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza, 8"' Floor
PO Box 1988 M-30
Santa Ana, Ca 82702
Copy to:
City Manager
City Attorney
-8-
ii19d_000U' 11;51IV 11 11 A-21
Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency
If to OWNER:
AC 2525 MAIN, LLC
240 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Attn: Manager
Telephone: (
Facsimile: [
(c) Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices
to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a
different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated
by the change.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement including
the Reservation of Rights, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property
in accordance with, and to the extent of, this Agreement. Except as expressly
provided otherwise herein, the Project shall remain subject to all Existing Land Use
Regulations and Development Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, and notwithstanding the authority of the CITY to further revise the Land
Use Regulations pursuant to Government Code section 65866, the permitted uses of
the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public
purposes shall be those set forth in the Land Existing Use Regulations and
Development Approvals. OWNER shall comply with all mitigation measures
required to be undertaken pursuant to any document prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to the Project.
3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise
provided under the terms of this Agreement including the Reservation of Rights, the
rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the
density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed
buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications
applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing Land Use Regulations
and Development Approvals. In connection with any subsequently adopted Project
Approvals and except as specifically provided otherwise herein, CITY may exercise
its discretion in accordance with the Land Use Regulations then in effect, as provided
by this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Reservation of Rights. CITY
shall accept for processing, review and action all applications for subsequent Project
Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the same manner and the CITY
shall exercise its discretion, when required or authorized to do so, to the same extent
it would otherwise be entitled in the absence of this Agreement.
3.3 Reservation of Rights.
_9_
?,39J.IIIIINI2 315,3197,11 11 A-22
3.3.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, the following regulations shall apply to the development of the
Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to
cover the actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring
compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued.
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications,
notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure.
(c) Regulations, policies and rules governing engineering and construction
standards and specifications applicable to public and private improvements, including, without limitation,
all uniform codes adopted by the City and any local amendments to those codes adopted by the CITY,
including, without limitation, the CITY's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical
Code, and Grading Ordinance.
(d) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no
such Development Exaction adopted after the Effective Date shall apply to development of the Property
under this Agreement unless agreed to by OWNER. In the event any such subsequently adopted
Development Exaction, agreed to by OWNER, fulfills the same purposes, in whole or in part, as the fees
set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, CITY shall allow a credit against such subsequently adopted
Development Exaction For the fees paid under Section 4 of this Agreement to the extent such fees fulfill the
same purposes.
(e) Regulations that may be in material conflict with this Agreement but that
are reasonably necessary to protect the residents of the project or the immediate community from a
condition perilous to their health or safety. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied
and construed so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement.
(f) Regulations that are not in material conflict with this Agreement or the
Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing
of development of the Property shall be deemed to materially conflict with the Development Plan and shall
therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property.
(g) Regulations that are in material conflict with the Development Plan;
provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development of that
Property in which the OWNER has a legal or equitable interest.
(h) Regulations that impose, levy, alter or amend fees, or charges relating to
consumers or end users, including, without limitation, trash can placement, service charges and limitations
on vehicle parking.
(i) Regulations of other public agencies, including Development Impact Fees
adopted or imposed by such other public agencies, although collected by CITY.
3.3.2 Subsequent Project Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent
CITY, in acting on subsequent Project Approvals and to the same extent it would otherwise be
authorized to do so absent this Agreement, from applying subsequently adopted or amended
Land Use Regulations that do not materially conflict with this Agreement.
-10-
53394 A)OU'- 31553187,13 11 A-23
3.3.3 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that
State, County or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this
Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this
Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be
necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that
this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such
laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining
provisions impractical to enforce.
3.3.4 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that CITY is restricted in
its authority to limit certain aspects of its police power by contract and that the foregoing
limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to CITY all of its police power
that cannot be or are not expressly so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to
its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to CITY all such power and authority that cannot be or
is not by this Agreement's express terms so restricted.
3.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the
parties that other public agencies not within the control of CITY may possess
authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or
jointly with CITY and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public
agencies.
3.5 Timing of Development. Because the Cali forma Supreme Court held
in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure
of the parties in that case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later -
adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties'
agreement, it is the specific intent of the Parties to provide for the timing of the Project
in this Agreement. To do so, the Parties acknowledge and provide that OWNER shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such order, at such
rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub -phases as Owner
deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment
3.6 Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions
3.6.1 OWNER shall have the ability to reserve and record such covenants,
conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) against the Property as OWNER deems appropriate, in
its sole and absolute discretion. Such CC&Rs may not conflict with this Agreement or the
General Plan. Before recording any CC&Rs, OWNER shall provide a copy of the CC&Rs to
the CITY for review and approval by the City Attorney, whose approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
3.6 2 The City Attorney's review shall be limited to determining if the
CC&Rs substantially comply with this Agreement and Project's conditions of approval as
approved by the City Council and that the CC&Rs incorporate and reference the following
information regarding the approved development:
(a) The Parking Management Plan
(b) The Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan
(c) The Property Maintenance Plan
;;304 YYW l l i;1187. i 1 11 A-24
(d) The project Conditions of Approval
3.6.3 Within thirty (30) days after receiving a copy of the proposed CC&Rs
from OWNER, the City Attorney shall provide OWNER with either (i) a statement that the
CC&Rs comply with this Agreement ("CC&R Approval") or (ii) written comments identifying
each aspect of the CC&Rs which the City Attorney believes not to be in compliance with this
Agreement (a "Statement of Non -Compliance"). If the City Attorney fails to provide OWNER
with either CC&R Approval or a Statement of Non -Compliance within thirty (30) days
following a written request by OWNER, City shall be deemed to have approved the CC&Rs
and OWNER may record the CC&Rs against the Property. If the City Attorney provides a
Statement of Non -Compliance, OWNER shall have thirty (30) days in which to respond to the
Statement of Non -Compliance. Upon submittal of OWNER'S response, the procedure
described above for the initial submittal and City Attorney review of proposed CC&Rs shall
again be followed. This procedure shall be followed until OWNER either (1) receives CC&R
Approval, (2) submits the compliance issues to binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the
American Arbitration Association, (3) files an action for declaratory relief in Orange County
Superior Court seeking a judicial determination of the compliance of the proposed CC&Rs, or
(4) agreement is otherwise reached between the Parties allowing for the recording of the
CC&Rs. The CC&Rs may run with the land and bind OWNER'S successors and assigns.
Except as provided above, any dispute between the Parties regarding the CITY'S approval or
rejection of the CC&Rs shall be subject to immediate and binding arbitration pursuant to the
rules of the American Arbitration Association.
3.7 Moratoria. Except as specifically set forth in this section, City
agrees that no moratorium or other similar limitation (whether relating to the rate,
timing, or sequencing of the development of the Project or any part thereof and
whether or not enacted by local initiative or otherwise) affecting subdivision/tract
maps, grading or building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlements
approved, issued, or granted within the City, after the Effective Date of this
Agreement, shall apply to the Project. OWNER acknowledges and agrees that the
provisions hereof shall not preclude the application to the Project of a moratorium or
other similar limitation (of the type described in the preceding sentence) enacted in
order to protect an imminent threat to the public health or safety.
3.8 Development Agreement/Project Approvals. In the event of any
inconsistency between any Existing Land Use Regulation and a Project Approval, the
provisions of the Project Approval shall control. In the event of any inconsistency
between any Existing Land Use Regulation, any Project Approval and this
Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.
3.9 LEED Certification. OWNER shall design and construct the building
to achieve not less than a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ("LEED")
Silver Standard equivalent. OWNER shall focus design efforts to ensure the Project
meets the environmental needs of the community, as well as, the Project, itself,
maintains an eco-friendly design. It is anticipated the Project will include, but is not
limited to, drought tolerant landscaping and irrigation systems, solar and EV systems,
and reclaimed water.
-I2-
55394,00007 3155137 13 11 A-2 5
4. PUBLIC BENEFITS.
4.1 Intent. The Parties acknowledge and agree that development of the
Property will result in substantial public needs that will not be fully met by the
Development Plan and further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers
substantial private benefits on OWNER that should be balanced by commensurate
public benefits.
4.2 Public Benefits. OWNER has committed by this Agreement to
contribute to the acquisition, construction and maintenance of certain "Public
Benefits" as provided below
4.2.1 CITY Facilities. OWNER shall provide the following benefits
towards the acquisition, construction and maintenance of the CITY Facilities, as follows:
(a) Public Art. OWNER shall create, install, and
maintain a public art project with a value equivalent to one-half of one percent (0.5%)
of the total construction cost of the Project. Total construction cost shall mean all
design, engineering and construction costs. OWNER shall prepare and submit to the
City, no later than one hundred eighty (180) days before final approval for occupancy
or the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a public art plan that is consistent with
Chapter 15 of the Citywide Design Guidelines, Public Art Guidelines. The approved
art shall be installed prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the Project.
(b) Santiago Park Improvement Construction. At the
City's determination, Owner shall manage and construct the Santiago Park Phase II
Park Improvements ("Park Improvements") subject to review and approval by the
City. The Park Improvements shall include, but are not limited to design, engineering,
permitting, construction, and installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting
and bike trail enhancement, as described in more detail on Exhibit G. The total
expenditure for the Park Improvements shall not exceed One Million Four Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000) ("Phase II Expenditure"). The State Coastal
Conservancy has notified the City that it has allocated up to Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for the Design of the Park Improvements. If and when
the City receives the funds, in the event that the Design work for the Park
Improvements is less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), the City
at its sole discretion, may make a request to State Coastal Conservancy, and if
approved by the Agency, the City will apply the excess grant funds to construction as
part of the City's contribution to the Park Improvements. Owner shall be responsible
for all aspects of the Park Improvements. Prior to issuance of permits, City shall have
the rights to review, approve, and accept the design and material quality of the Park
Improvements. Owner shall complete the Park Improvements in a timely fashion, by
the earlier of 36 months following issuance by the City the first building permit for
the construction of the Development, or prior to issuance of final approval of
occupancy for the Development. Following completion of the Park Improvements,
and no later than three years from the issuance of a notice of acceptance of Park
Improvements, City shall reimburse Owner an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of
the total cost of the Park Improvements, up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars
-13-
SSI'M,000211SSIt3 [} 11A-26
(S700,000) (`Reimbursement Amount") for actual, third party costs associated with
the Park Improvements.
IF DETERMINED TO BE APPLICABLE BY THE CITY, OWNER HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGES, CONSENTS AND AGREES THAT THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS ARE
A PUBLIC WORK PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTION 1720 ET. SEQ. AND THAT
LABORERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION OR
OPERATION OF THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE PAID THE PREVAILING PER
DIEM WAGE RATE FOR THEIR LABOR CLASSIFICATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1720, ET SEQ. THE
OWNER AGREES WITH THE CITY THAT THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME THE
RESPONSIBILITY AND BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
LABORERS EMPLOYED RELATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION OR
OPERATION OF THE PROJECT AT THE PREVAILING PER DIEM WAGE RATE FOR
THEIR LABOR CLASSIFICATION, AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTIONS 1720, ET SEQ.
THE DEVELOPER, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS,
WAIVES AND RELEASES THE CITY FROM ANY RIGHT OF ACTION THAT MAY BE
AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THEM PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTION 1781. THE
DEVELOPER ACKNOWLEDGES THE PROTECTIONS OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542
RELATIVE TO THE WAIVER AND RELEASE CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 5.8,
WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE CREDITOR
OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT
THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER,
WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED IIIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE
DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
BY INITIALING BELOW, THE OWNER KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY
WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 SOLELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
WAIVERS AND RELEASES OF THISX ION 5.8:
eloper's Initials
ADDITIONALLY, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD
HARMLESS THE CITY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 8 AGAINST ANY CLAIMS
PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE SECTION 1720 ET. SEQ., INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO SECTION 1781, ARISING FROM THIS AGREEMENT OR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION OR OPERATION OF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE
PARKIMPROVEMENTS_
i_i394.00002\t 1553187,13
(c) Park Santiago Neighborhood Benefits. OWNER has
met with residents of Park Santiago and has agreed to provide the following amenities:
-14-
11 A-27
(1) Limited access to onsite amenities in a manner to be determined
by OWNER as reasonably acceptable to Planning and Building Agency Executive Director.
(2) Security patrol in the residential neighborhood and Santiago Park
a. 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.
(d) 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 final 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) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing non LED
light and/or fixture with LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood.
(3) A street light at the Santiago Park Drive / Main Street intersection.
(4) Decorative concrete pavement within the intersection of Main
Street/Walkie Way and Main Street/Santiago Park Drive.
4.2.2 R. Safety Fencing. OWNER shall, at its sole cost and expense,
in an amount not to exceed $150,000.00, install and maintain security fencing under the I-5
freeway and Broadway overpass for neighborhood safety (see Exhibit J - Safety Fencing). City
shall approve the design and materials for such security fencing prior to installation.
4.2.3 Graffiti Removal. OWNER shall also install and maintain graffiti
protection on new surfaces and shall, within 24 hours of discovery of graffiti, cause it to be
removed and associated restorations completed throughout the Project.
4.3 Development Impact Fees.
4.3.1 Amount of Fee. The Development Impact Fees set forth in Exhibit
"D" shall be charged to the Project. These fee amounts are estimated and will be subject to
change based on the fee rate applicable at the time of issuance of the Building Permit.
-15-
i 794 W002 31; 53187.13, 11 A-2 8
4.3.2 Time of Payment. The fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.3.1 shall
be paid to CITY prior to the issuance of building permits for each residential unit. No fees
shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, but
the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.3.1 shall be paid prior to the re -issuance or extension
of any building permit for a residential unit for which such fees have not previously been paid.
4.3.3 Fee Credits. OWNER shall be entitled to credit against the fees
required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.1 for the dedication of land, the construction of
improvements or the payment of fees as specifically set forth in Exhibit "E.
4.3.4 Future Development Impact Fee Program Changes. The Parties
hereby agree that, in addition to the Development Impact Fees included in Exhibit `D", the
Project shall be subject to any increase in fees, or amendment or alteration, of Development
Impact Fee programs in effect on the Effective Date.
4.3.5 Prepayment. In no event shall the prepayment of any Development
Impact Fees required hereunder establish a vested right on the part of OWNER or any other
owner of the Property or any person or entity with an interest therein to develop the Project or
the Property following the expiration, cancellation or termination of the Term of this
Agreement. Following the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement, all
Development Impact Fees then in effect shall be applicable to the Project and Property
notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement and notwithstanding the prepayment of the
Development Impact Fees set forth in Exhibit `D", any increase or amendment of any
Development Impact Fee, or any combination thereof. Nothing contained in this Subsection
4.3.5 shall be construed as limiting the right of OWNER to a credit against any Development
Impact Fees as set forth in Section 4.3.3 hereof.
4.4 Dedication of On -Site Easements and Riehts of Way. OWNER shall
dedicate to CITY all on -site rights of way and easements deemed necessary for public
improvements as indicated on the approved Development Plan for the Project within
15 days of receipt of written demand from CITY.
4.5 Timine of Construction of Off -Site Infrastructure. Approval of any
issuance of final approval for occupancy on the Property shall be conditioned upon
CITY's determination, in its sole discretion, that sufficient progress is being made on
construction of off -site infrastructure serving development of OWNER's Property.
4.6 Santiago Park Access. OWNER shall grant the City a public use,
access, ingress, and egress easement in perpetuity on and within the Development to
provide public access to Santiago Park. The scope, location, and all aspects of the
easement shall meet the requirements reasonably set forth by the City as determined
by the Executive Directors of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services, Public
Works, and the Planning and Building Agency and consistent with the conceptual
design as described/depicted on Exhibit F
4.6.1 Owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the
easement area. The easement area shall be maintained consistent with City standards
and to City's reasonable satisfaction at all times.
4.6.2 Reserved.
16-
4.6.3 Reserved.
4.7 Housing Opportunity Ordinance. Project shall comply with the
requirements of the Housing Opportunity Ordinance (the "HOO") in effect on the
Effective Date.
4.8 Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan. 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. Prior to applying to the City for occupancy permit, the Owner shall submit
to the City an Overcrowding Mitigating Implementation Plan. Prior to changing or
revising the implementation plan, Owner shall provide a 60-day minimum written
notice to the City Community Development Agency and the Planning and Building
Safety Agency informing of any proposed changes or revisions.
4.9 Local Live -Work Preference. Prior to issuance of any Building
Permits, OWNER shall develop and submit to the City Manager or his/her designee, a
local live -work plan for the Project targeting, to the extent feasible and consistent with
state and federal fair housing laws, a preference or priority for persons who currently
either live or work in the City of Santa Ana for the rental of units at the Project.
4.10 Local Sourcing Plan. Developer agrees to make a good faith effort to
encourage contractors and suppliers to hire and procure locally, to the extent that it is
cost effective and does not delay the overall project development schedule. Prior to
issuance of any Building Permits, Developer shall develop and submit to the Planning
Agency (the "PBA") a local sourcing plan for the Project targeting, to the extent
feasible, the hiring of quatif3ed workers, construction contractors, or the purchasing of
goods locally within the City of Santa Ana. The plan must be reviewed in a timely
manner and approved by the PBA and be implemented for the construction of the
project prior to issuance of any Building Permits. Such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
5. FINANCING & MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES
OWNER may propose, and if requested by CITY shall cooperate in, the formation of any special assessment
district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism to pay for the construction and/or
maintenance and operation of public infrastructure facilities required as part of the Development Plan by
providing up to $50,000 toward the costs of CITY in preparing a study to determine the need for any such
district or alternate financing mechanism. To the extent any such district or other financing entity is formed
and sells bonds in order to finance such reimbursements, OWNER may be reimbursed to the extent that
OWNER spends funds or dedicates land for the establishment of public facilities. If such a district or other
financing entity is proposed OWNER agrees not to oppose such formation. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as
requiring CITY or the City Council to form any such district or other financing entity or to issue and sell
bonds. In addition, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be construed as requiring OWNER to vote in support of or annex to such district or other financing
entity. It shall be the sole right of OWNER to determine whether to be in or out of any such district or other
financing entity.
17-
5,3oa W 002 31??3 i 97.1 s 11 A-30
6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.
6.1 Periodic Review. The CITY shall review this Agreement annually,
on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the compliance
by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement. OWNER shall submit an Annual
Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, within thirty (30) days
after written notice from the City Manager. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be
accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the
estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding
year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by
resolution of the City Council.
6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of
compliance with this Agreement at any time. The City Manager, or his or her
designee, shall conduct such special reviews.
6.3 Procedure.
(a) During either a periodic review or a special review, OWNER shall be required to
demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue
shall be on OWNER.
(b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the City Manager, or
his or her designee, shall submit a report to the Planning Commission setting forth the evidence concerning
good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Agreement and his or her recommended finding
on that issue.
(c) If the Planning Commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial
evidence that OWNER has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
review shall be concluded.
(d) If the Planning Commission finds and determines on the basis of substantial
evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
Commission shall providewritten noticeto OWNER of such findings setting forth the nature of the problem
and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such problem and, where the problem can be cured,
OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such problem within thirty (30) days after the effective
date of such notice or, in the event that such problem cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period but
can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such problem within
such thirty (30) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such problem. If
OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council
modification or termination of this Agreement. OWNER may appeal a Planning Commission
determination pursuant to this Section 6.3(d) pursuant to CITY's rules for consideration of appeals in
zoning matters then in effect. Notice of default as provided under Section 7.3 of this Agreement shall be
given to OWNER prior to or concurrent with proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5.
6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding
under Section 6.3, CITY determines to proceed with modification or termination of
this Agreement, CITY shall give written notice to OWNER of its intention so to do.
The notice shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing
and shall contain:
a
55394.00002 31553197.13 11 A-31
(a) The time and place of the hearing;
(b) A statement as to whether or not CITY proposes to terminate or to modify the
Agreement; and,
(c) Such other information that the CITY considers necessary to inform OWNER of
the nature of the proceeding.
6.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set
for the hearing on modification or termination, OWNER shall be given an opportunity
to be heard. OWNER shall be required to demonstrategood faith compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be
on OWNER. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that OWNER
has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City
Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and impose such
conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the CITY. The
decision of the City Council shall be final.
6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a
Periodic or Special Review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this
Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement
Compliance ("Certificate") to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or
Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the City
Manager and City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect; and (2) OWNER
is not in detault. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information
necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance,
shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and
shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review.
OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.
6.6.1 Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other
transferees or OWNER, CITY shall not be bound by a Certificate if detault existed at the time
of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the City
Manager or City Council.
6.7 Conditions of Discretionary Approvals. The requirements imposed
as conditions of any discretionary approval received through the City's existing
regulatory process shall be governed by the terms of those approvals, and in no
event shall such conditions be affected by the termination, cancellation, rescission,
revocation, or detault or expiration of this Development Agreement (although such
conditions must comply with the Applicable Rules). The Conditions of approval are
incorporated herein by reference an as attached as Exhibit "I"
7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
7.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that CITY
would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under
this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. In
general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available
for the breach ofany provision ofthis Agreement, except that CITY shall not be liable
IN
55394,00001 31 ii3187,13 11 A-32
in damages to OWNER, or to any successor in interest of OWNER, or to any other
Person, and OWNER covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages:
(a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action that arises out of this
Agreement; or
(b) For the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or
provided under or pursuant to this Agreement; or
(c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the
application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement.
7.2 Release. Except for non -monetary remedies, OWNER, for itself, its
successors and assignees, hereby releases CITY, its officers, agents and employees
from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out
of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to,
any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the
California Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability
or damage, whatsoever, upon CITY because it entered into this Agreement or because
of the terms of this Agreement. OW NER hereby acknowledges that it has read and is
familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542, which is set forth
below
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE CREDITOR OR
RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE
TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD
HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR
RELEASED PARTY.
BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 IN
CONN TION WITH THE MATTERS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE FOREGOING WAIVERS
A LEASES.
OWNER'S Initials
55194.0(Wr131553187 13
7.3 Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of OWNER.
CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure of 0 WNER to perform
any material duty or obligation of OWNER under this Agreement, or to comply in
good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "default");
provided, however, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this
Section only after providing written notice to OWNER of default setting forth the
nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default
and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure
such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the
event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be
cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such
-20_
11 A-33
default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such
actions and cure such default.
7.4 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITY. OWNER may
terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by CITY in the performance
of a material tern of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to CITY
of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by
CITY to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, CITY has failed to
take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date
of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60)
day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions
necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently
proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.
8. LITIGATION.
8.1 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. OWNER shall
defend, at its expense, including attomeys' fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY,
its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against CITY,
its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of
this Agreement, or the approval of any permit or entitlement granted pursuant to this
Agreement. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any claim, action, proceeding
or determination included within this Section 8.1, and CITY shall cooperate in the
defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action,
proceeding or determination, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER
shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harniless CITY.
CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action,
proceeding or determination.
8.2 Environmental Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold
CITY, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based
or asserted, upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees,
subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent
contractors for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation
relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the
Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER
shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, CITY, its officers, agents and
employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission.
CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action.
8.3 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Section 8.1 and Section 8.2
herein, CITY reserves, the right to either (1) approve the attomey(s) that the
indemnifying party selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend the indemnified party
hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own
defense; provided, however, that the indemnifying party shall reimburse the
indemnified party forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such
defense, including attomeys' fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.
8.4 Challenge to Existing Land Use Approvals. By accepting the
benefits of this Agreement, OWNER, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest,
-21-
?,304A000' 31?,3l87.13 11 A-34
hereby expressly agrees and covenants not to sue or otherwise challenge any land use
approval affecting the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date. Such agreement
and covenant includes, without limitation, the covenant against any direct suit by
OWNER or its successor in interest, or any participation, encouragement or
involvement whatsoever that is adverse to CITY by OWNER or its successor in
interest, other than as part of required response to lawful orders of a court or other
body of competent j urisdiction. OWNER hereby expressly waives, on behalf of itself
and its successors in interest, any claim or challenge to any land use approval affecting
the Property and in effect as of the Effective Date.
OWNER hereby acknowledges that it has read and is familiar with the provisions of
California Civil Code Section 1542, which is set forth below:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO
CLAIMS THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT
KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY IILM OR
HER, WOULD IIAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 1542 IN CONNECTION WITH THE MATTERS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE
FOREGOING WAIVERS AND RELEASES.
O Initials
9.5 Survival. The provisions of Sections 8.1 through 9.4, inclusive, shall
survive the termination of this Agreement.
a
The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at
OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement
thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the
Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement
interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and
representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification.
CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification
provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement.
Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat,
render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property trade in good faith and for
value, unless otherwise required by law.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any
part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified
herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by
55394AM02Ut553t97. l3
_22_
11 A-35
OWNER in the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement
(c) If CITY timely receives a request from a mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice
of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice
to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such
party under this Agreement.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof,
pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the
Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to
perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee
such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is
a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to
be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or
assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.5 of this
Agreement.
10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or
cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder by the Clerk
of the City Council within ten (10) days after the City enters into the Agreement, in
accordance with Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. If the Parties to this
Agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel this Agreement, or if the
CITY terminates or modifies this Agreement as provided herein for failure of the
OWNER to comply in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
the City Clerk shall have notice of such action recorded with the Orange County
Recorder.
10.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire
understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written
representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements
that are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of
any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any
proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of
this Agreement.
10.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are
not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this
Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set
forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the Development
Impact Fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY
would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in
the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this
entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
-23-
;;393O(X)O3 315?314T13 11 A-36
10.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute
arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of California, with venue in Orange County. This Agreement shall be construed
as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the
objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect
that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in
interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the
negotiation and preparation hereof.
10.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted
for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this
Agreement.
10.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word
includes the plural.
10.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the Term of this
Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one OWNER, all
obligations of such OWNERS under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and
the default of any such OWNER shall be the default of all such OWNERS.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no OWNER of a single lot that has been finally
subdivided and sold to such OWNER as a member of the general public or otherwise
as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as expressly
provided for herein.
10.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the
provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.
10.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of
any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to
exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of
such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the
terms of this Agreement thereafter.
10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered
into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns.
No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this
Agreement.
10.11 Force Maieure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where
failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is
caused by: (1) strikes, lockouts or labor disputes; (2) inability to obtain labor or
materials or reasonable substitutes therefor; (3) inclement weather which delays or
precludes construction; (4) acts of God, including but not limited to earthquakes, or
the public enemy or civil commotion; (5) condemnation, (6) fire or other casualty;
(7) shortage of fuel, electricity or natural gas; (8) action or nonaction of public utilities
or of local, state or federal governments, affecting the work, including, but not limited
to, any delays in the permitting process as a result of the action or inaction or such
governmental authorities; (9) criminal acts or acts of terrorism; or (10) other
conditions similar to those enumerated above which are beyond the reasonable
24-
>s39., 000r11;;3197.11 11A-37
anticipation or control of such Party, or other causes beyond the Party's reasonable
control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for
performance shall be extended for the duration of each such event, , provided that the
Term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than
five (5) years.
10.13 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual
covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance
by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such
benefited party.
10.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be
binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in
interest to the Parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be
enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land.
Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to
development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every
portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (c) is
binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the
Property or any portion thereof.
10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in
counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect
as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.
10.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under
this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing
or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried
in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, and the parties
hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal or change of venue
to any other court.
10.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and
agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a
private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect
hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the
terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint
venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only
relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the
development of private property and the owner of such property.
10.17 Further Actions and Instruments Each of the Parties shall cooperate
with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated
hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the
satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at
any time, the other party shall promptly execute and file or record such required
instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under
the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this
Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement.
-25
553,94 WOO' I 1 147.11 11 A-38
10.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed
to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain.
10.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event OWNER is not a resident
of the State of California or it is an association, partnership orjoint venture without a
member, partner orjoint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign
corporation, then in any such event, OWNER shall file with the City Manager, upon
its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State
of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent
for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon
this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such
action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service of such
process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally
served with such process and such service shall constitute valid service upon
OWNER. OWNER is amenable to the process so served, submits to thejurisdiction
of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto.
10.20 Certificate of Compliance. At any time during the term of this
Agreement, any lender or either Party may request either Party to this Agreement to
confirm that (1) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there
have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as
modified and stating the date and nature of such modifications); (2) to the best of such
Party's knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement or if defaults do exist, to
describe the nature of such defaults; and (3) any other information reasonably
requested. Each Party hereby agrees to provide a Certificate to such lender or other
Party within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written request therefor.
10.21 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this
Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and represents that he or she/they have the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her/their corporation,
partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he or she/they has/have
the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
-26-
Sn3940000'_ 3l;,3187.1 ` 11 A-39
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Development Agreement on the
last day and year set forth below.
>5i94.00IX)3'6155318T.0
OWNER
AC 2525 MAIN, LLC, a California limited
liability company
By: AC - n Manager LLC
Its: Man'Ia_g'er
Dated: IBee�l
CICy
CITY OF SANTA ANA, a California municipal
corporation
Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
fbr City Attorney
,2^
11 A-40
EXHIBIT "A"
(Legal Description of the Property)
ii3",0000'_' 3I5i3lg'.13 11 A-41
EX111131T "B"
(Map of the property)
!�� t
rt -
�. if et� -•
ILell
+
A
•-a-;•-�-
v a,
1- aitya�...
7 ti
i i344.IX)11117 31 ;;3 I87.13
11 A-42
ExHlsrr "C"
Development Plans
Development Plans and entitlement applications as presented in the City Staff Report Dated are
incorporated herein by reference. Project entitlements and applications include, but may not be limited to
the following entitlements:
1. Development Agreement No. 2018-01
2. General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06
3. Amendment Application No. 2018-10
4. Specific Development No. 93
5. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01
„3e.4000m ll iiII , I 11 A-43 - -
EXHIBIT"D"
Development Impact Fees (Estimated)
The estimated amount of Development Impact Fees associated with the project based upon the site plan
documentation submitted as part of the Project Approvals include but are not limited to the following fees
and deposits; applicable sewer fee, street fee, storm drain fee, traffic fee, deposits, and all applicable fees
associated with demolition of existing structures, drainage, site development, and construction are based
on actual square footage of any commercial development and number of residential units.
Based on 256 Residential Units, the Development Impact Fees are estimated at:
Fee
Estimated Total
Sewer
$199,344
Capital Facilities Capacity
Charges
(Orange County Sanitation
District Charges)
$607,279
Storm Drain
$55,776
Traffic
$305,009
Parks & Recreation
$974,250
Fire Facilities Fee
$252,326
Santa Ana Unified School Fees
$1,050,895
Estimated Total
$3,444,878
- --.
;;39.1 M00I ',I ;,3l 67J 1 11 A-44
EXHIBIT "E"
Development Impact Fees Credits, if any will be determined at time of building permit issuance and shall
be incorporated herein by reference.
;,,94INIM' 31ii,IYL3 11 A-45
EXHIBIT "F"
Santiago Park Access Rights (Conceptual)
>4,01,Y,)001 ; .;I,q, 11 A-46
ruw -
I-XHIBIT "G"
Park Design and Improvements (Conceptual)
SANTIAGO CREEK TRAIL ACCESS
Cl r Of 5A.NTA ANA
;i3940000'_ 31»J 187.13 11A-47 ..._.. --
EXHIBIT H
Park Santiago Security Patrol Area Map (Conceptual)
5519.1 a00' 11::1187.13 11 A-48
EXHIBIT I
Conditions of Discretionary Approvals
2525 N. Main - Project Approval Conditions:
The project is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with
applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California
Building Standards Code, and all other applicable regulations. In addition, it shall meet the conditions of
approval articulated in the sections below.
The Applicant or Owner, or Owner's successor(s) or assignee(s) (collectively, "Applicant") with the City's
consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, must comply with each and every condition listed below
The Applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the
development project. Failure to comply with each and every condition may also result in breach of the
Development Agreement.
GENERAL CONDI'f1ONS
Project Description and Entitlements: Approval of this application is to build (Insert Final
Approved Project Description and specific entitlements) with such additions, revisions, changes or
modifications as required by the Planning Commission as articulated in Planning Commission
Resolution No. XXXX, dated XXXX. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be consistent
with the Planning Commission's approval and in compliance with the applicable land use
regulations of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and any applicable State law and the associated plans
presented to the Planning Commission on (Insert PC hearing date) and on file with the City.
2. Acknowledgment of Conditions of Approval. The Applicant shall file an Acknowledgment of
Conditions of Approval with the Planning and Building Agency within 30 days of final approval
of all resolutions. The property Applicant shall be required to record the Acknowledgment of these
Conditions of Approval with the Office of the Orange County Recorder and proof of such
recordation shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Agency.
3. Enforcement of Conditions. In case of violation of any of the conditions of approval of applicable
law, the property owner and tenant will be issued a Notice of Correction pursuant City regulations
or pursuant to applicable terms of the Development Agreement, the Maintenance Agreement, and
the CC&Rs if said violation is not remedied in accordance with the specified period of time and/or
subsequent violations of the conditions of approval and/or City law occurs within ninety days of
any Notice of Correction, the property owner shall be held responsible to reimburse the City for all
Staff time directly attributable to enforcement of the conditions of approval, mitigation measures
as stipulated in the various agreements and/or City law including but not limited to, revocation of
the herein approvals.
4. Project Plans. Project plans for the development shall be subject to a complete code compliance
review with the Planning and Building Agency when the plans are submitted for plan check and
shall comply with all applicable City of Santa Ana ordinances, regulations, and policies prior to
building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, the requirements established or authorized
by Chapter 8 (Building and Structures) and Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the City of Santa Ana Municipal
Code.
ii394MW 31553187,11 11 A-49
LLGA1,
Indemnity. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Ana, its
agents, officers, or employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the City, its legislative body,
advisory agencies or administrative officers the subject application. The City will promptly notify
the Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding against the City and the Applicant will either
undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs, or will advance funds to
pay for defense of the matter by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right
to settle or abandon the matter without the Applicant's consent, but should it do so, the City shall
waive the indemnification herein, except the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following
an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights
herein.
6. Approval Time Period. The approval of the entitlements herein shall be valid for a time period
consistent with the Development Agreement.
IMPACT FEES
Project Development Impact Fees. The following Development Impact Fees shall be charged to
the Project. These fee amounts are estimated and will be subject to change based on the fee rate
applicable at the time of issuance of the Building Permit.
Fee
Estimated Total
Sewer
$199,344
Capital Facilities
Capacity Charges
(Orange County
Sanitation District
Charges)
$607,279
Storm Drain
$55,776
Traffic
$305,009
Parks & Recreation
$974,250
Fire Facilities Fee
$252,326
Santa Ana Unified
School Fees
$1,050,895
Estimated Total
$3,444,878
City Invoices. All invoices the Applicant has received from the City shall be paid to a zero balance
prior final approval for occupancy by the City or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
PROJECT DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
ii3WOMO' 31;;31H7.13 11 A-50
2. The approved project is a multi -family apartment rental project. Any proposal in the future
to convert the rental units to condominium ownership, the Owner shall comply with the
requirements for a condominium project in accordancewith local and state zoning and subdivision
requirements.
3. Unit Mix: Number of family units to be a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the proposed units
to contain 2 & 3 bedrooms.
4. Onsite Property Manager. The Project shall include the provision to have 24-hour on -site
Property Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the on -
site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis:
(a) Police Department
(b) Fire Department
(c) Planning and Building Agency
(d) Community Development Agency
5. Emergency Evacuation Plan. Developer shall submit and obtain approval of an Emergency
Evacuation Plan (the "EEP") from City Police and Fire Protection agencies prior to final approval
for occupancy or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Up-to-date 24-hour emergency
contact information for the on -site personnel shall be provided to the City on an ongoing basis and
the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be submitted to the following City Agencies:
(a) Police Department
(b) Fire Department
(c) Planning and Building Agency
(d) Community Development Agency
6. Crime Free Housing Plan. Applicant shall work with City Staff to develop a crime free housing
policy, procedure, and design plan (the "CFl I Plan") and shall submit and obtain approval from the
Planning and Building Agency of the CFH Plan prior to final approval for occupancy or the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The approved CFH Plan shall be implemented and
administered by Property Management. The approved CFH Plan shall be implemented, adhered to,
and be enforced by the Project at all times.
Onsite Parking Management Plan. Developer shall provide onsite parking for residents and
visitors of the Project and actively monitor the parking demand of the Project site. Developer shall
continually monitor and take appropriate measures to manage the parking demand of the Project
site to mitigate the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or right-of-way.
Prior to final approval for occupancy or the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Developer
shall submit and obtain approval from the PI3A a Parking Management Plan (the "PMP") meeting
the requirements of this Condition. The approved PMP shall be adhered to and be enforced by the
Project at all times.
8. Good Neighbor Policy. The Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning
Division a good neighbor policy implementation plan that will provide a process for the
neighborhood to report nuisance issues to the property management to help manage and address
potential nuisance issues including but not limited to noise, lighting, property maintenance, parking
overflow into the street and neighborhood, and landscape maintenance.
ii194,(X)00' 11y.3I 87.13 11 A-51
9. Parking Ratio. Number of spaces and onsite ratio of parking shall be a minimum of two (2) spaces
per unit.
10. Privacy along east property line. To ensure maximum privacy screening between the project site
and the residential uses along the eastern property, the Applicant is constructing an eight (8) foot
tall property line decorative block wall. In addition to this wall, and installation and maintenance
of all existing mature trees along the eastern property line, all windows facing the eastern property
with a direct line of sight to the adjacent properties bordering the eastern property line shall be
design incorporating opaque view obscuring glass.
11. Protect and Preserve Existing Mature Trees along the Eastern Property Line. To ensure
maximum privacy screening between the project site and the residential uses along the eastern
property, the Applicant shall protect and preserve all existing mature trees along the east property
line.
12. Protect and Preserve Existing Mature Trees on the Property not Located Along the East
Property Line. To the extent feasible, the Applicant shall protect and preserve all other mature
trees on the property. If the perseveration of the existing matures trees in not feasible because of
the location of the approved structures on the property, the Applicant shall work with Staff to
evaluate the feasibility of relocating the tree(s) to other locations on the property.
13. Edgewood Street Improvements. Only one emergency vehicular access may be permitted along
Edgewood Street. No other vehicular access or curb approach openings will be approved on this
street for the project. In addition, mature canopy and vertical specimen trees shall be planted along
the southern property line between the building and the adjacent sidewalk to integrate the building
with the adjacent single-family development across the street.
14. Property Line "'all. The project Applicant shall install an 8-foot tall property line block wall
along the entire eastern edge of the Project as part of the site construction and preparation process
and prior installation of the foundation. The design of the wall shall be approved by the Planning
Manager and shall be decoratively designed to include a mix of decorative materials, colors, and
decorative pilasters.
15. Santiago Park Entrance and Interface. If approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall
design the Project and residential units to also front onto Santiago Park, Main Street, and Santiago
Street entrance. The Project fagade along Santiago Park shall be consistent with and reflect the
natural, current state of the Park and include articulation of the building facade to include open
garden areas. The conceptual design is as shown in Attachment I to these conditions. The Santiago
Park Entrance design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planning, Public
Works, and Parks and Recreation Directors to ensure compliance with the Agreement. Approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.
16. Green Project Features. Alternative Transportation and Energy Source, Resource Conservation,
and LEED Certification. The project shall obtain Silver Standard or better LEED equivalent and
shall at the minimum, incorporate bike lockers, bike sharing programing, electric vehicle charging
stations, rain capturing systems, grey water capturing systems, and to the extent feasible,
automobile sharing programing.
17. Landscape Plan. A Landscape Plan (including Irrigation) prepared by a licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The
iiYA ,000' 31 ii3l �,. , 11 A-52
Irrigation Plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of controllers and points
of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute (G.P.M.), the size and location of
sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of conventional systems and drip systems; an
irrigation legend with complete specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all
assemblies and components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis;
and a summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above information
clearly and accurately. The City reserves the right to require subsequent checks, or approval of the
landscape plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.
18. Water Conservation. Landscaping shall comply with the City's water conservation ordinances in
accordance with SAMC Section and the State mandated Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (MWELO) 2015 update.
19. Installation. Landscaping for the project shall be complete in phases by building and shall be
installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The developer shall be
responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the development.
20. Landscape Details. The landscape plan shall include a Plant Legend containing: plant symbol,
scientific name of plant material, common name of plant material, plant container size, and plant
spacing. Very low, low and medium water usage plant materials are encouraged. The applicant
shall construct a landscape planter along the eastern property line. In this eastern planter, a
combination of vertical and canopy specimen trees shall be planted with minimum size of 60 inch
box. The landscape plan shall provide a cross section showing the planter at time of planting, after
five (5) years and at full maturity. The cross section shall demonstrate the landscaping will
adequately screen the project from the adjacent residential uses along the eastern portion of the
Property.
21. Minimum Tree Box Size. The applicant shall install minimum 36 inch box trees, when planting
trees for all required trees along street setbacks, open space areas and shared parking areas. All
other tree sizes may be dependent on the location, species and spacing. The final landscaping is
subject to the review and approval of the Planning Manager.
22. Maintenance of existing site. The site and the public R.O.W. adjacent to any portions of the site
shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris while the property is vacant and
undergoing development and during and after the construction, addition or implementation of the
entitlements granted herein. All trash and refuse shall be disposed of in dumpsters and be removed
from the premises on an -as needed basis. Any surplus construction materials shall be screened from
public view when not actually in use and be removed from the property upon completion of
construction activities. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent
to construction shall be done only by the property owner, the Applicant or by a permitted waste
contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal
of solid waste from residential, commercial, and construction areas within the City.
23. On Going Property Maintenance. Subject to review and applicability by the Planning and
Building Agency, the Community Development Agency, the Public Works Agency, and the City
Attorney to ensure that the property and all improvements located thereupon are properly
maintained, Developer (and the owner of the property upon which the authorized use and/or
authorized improvements are located if different from the Applicant) shall execute a maintenance
agreement with the City of Santa Ana which shall be recorded against the property and which shall
;;394 NHIM 31;;3187.13 11 A-53
be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain
covenants, conditions and restrictions relating to the following:
(a) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of construction
OF major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the construction site; implementation of
Proper erosion control, dust control and noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project
phasing etc.);
(b) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and restrictions, as
applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation, security requirements, the proper storage
and disposal of trash and debris, enforcement of the Parking Management Plan, enforcement of the
Overcrowding Mitigation Implementation Plan, and/or restrictions on certain uses, etc...)
(c) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters, signage
parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs and maintenance, as applicable;
(d) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all improvements located
thereupon at all times (including but not limited to controls on the proliferation of trash and debris
about the property; the proper and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and
upkeep of damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or improvements; the
timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint, parking striping, lighting and irrigation
fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and
related landscape improvements and the like, as applicable);
(e) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant is a tenant
OF licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the applicant and the owner of the property
shall be signatories to the maintenance agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for
compliance with its terms.
(f) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible for
complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the property or any interest in
any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless the prospective assignee agrees in writing to
assume all of the duties and obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance
agreement.
(g) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the enforcement of its
conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions authorizing the City to recover costs and
expenses which the City may incur arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which
the City may undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or to
enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property and a 50% administration fee.
The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs and/or expenses
incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or to enforce use restrictions shall become
a lien upon the property in an amount equivalent to the actual costs and expense incurred by the
City and a 50% administration fee.
(h) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a condition
precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction permit related to this entitlement.
LIGHTING
ii394, uur_3[?,3187.3 11A-54
24. Site and Building Lighting. The developer shall submit for review by the Planning Division and
the Engineering Department, the design and specifications for all proposed lighting fixtures
proposed for the buildings, drive aisles, parkways, parking areas, pathways, and surrounding areas
within the development. The fixtures shall be reviewed for quality, aesthetics, illumination values,
sustainability values such as LED and shall be decoratively and architecturally consistent with the
building design. The number, location, height, style and design shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Division and Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits.
UTILITIES
25. Undergrounding of Utilities. All utility service lines shall be underground. This includes all
existing above ground wires that cross over the property that feed adjacent properties.
26. Composite Utility Plan. The applicant shall submit a composite utility plan depicting the location
of all above ground utility appurtenances. The exact location of the equipment shall be approved
by the Planning Division, during the plan check process, and shall be installed as per approved
plans. They shall not be allowed within a required parking, turnaround and landscape areas or on
any facade facing a public street.
27. Screening of Mechanical Equipment. All mechanical equipment placement and screening shall
be included on the development plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division
prior to installation. Where practicable and as shown on the plans approved by the Planning
Commission in the course of obtaining the requested entitlements, mechanical equipment, heating,
ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, satellite dish systems, solar panels, thermal solar
heaters, utility meters, above ground utility and fire safety connections will be, screened, located
out of public view or be architectural integrated into the project design.
CONSTRUCTION
28. Construction Information. During construction, the Applicant will display signs visible to the
public from the public right-of-way with a contact number of the construction superintendant to
address any questions or concerns about demolition, grading, and construction activities including
dust, noise and vibration.
29. Vehicles and Equipment. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of an existing dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers.
30. Warning Devices. Replace backup audible warning devices with backup strobe lights or other
warning devices during evening construction activity to the extent permitted by the California
Division of Occupational Safety and health.
31. Pest Control. The Applicant shall have rodent and pest controls on site during demolition and
grading activities to mitigate impacts to the surrounding properties and neighborhood.
32. Perimeter Fence. Prior to demolition and construction, a perimeter security fence not exceeding
seven feet in height, shall be installed around the project site. The fencing shall include a green
55394.W00' 31;i3187A3 11 A-55
screen material or approved equivalent. The fence/screen material shall be properly maintained and
be free of rips, tears, fraying, graffiti, and any other damage or vandalism.
33. Site Maintenance. The site and the public R.O.W. adjacent to any portions of the site shall be
maintained in a condition which is free of debris, trash, weeds and overgrown vegetation both
during and after the construction, addition or implementation of the entitlements granted herein.
All trash and refuse shall be disposed of in dumpsters and be removed from the premises on an as
needed basis. Any surplus construction materials shall be stored so as to be screened from public
view when not actually in use and be removed from the property upon completion of construction
activities.
34. Construction Traffic Management Plan. A truck/traffic construction management plan is
required for this project pursuant to the City's Public Works Department. All construction traffic
regarding the movement of heavy equipment and graded materials are limited to off peak hours.
This plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
35. Construction Staging. During the construction process all related activities, including but not
limited to, loading, unloading, storage of equipment and materials, and parking of employee
vehicles are prohibited within the public R.O.W. All such activities shall be conducted only on the
project site and not in the public R.O.W. All staging areas and storage of equipment and materials
shall be set back from adjacent residential uses.
36. Construction Hours. In accordance with SAMC Section 18.314(e), Demolition, grading, and
exterior building construction activities shall be limited to the hours of between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be allowed on Sundays or federal
holidays. Compliance with this measure is subject to field inspection by City Staff.
37. Noise. All onsite activities shall comply with the City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance at all times.
38. Fire Protection. Fire protection facilities; including access, must be provided prior to and during
construction.
39. Fencing. Prior to commencing demolition and site preparation activities, the project site shall be
secured with a fence to prevent unauthorized access to the site and the fence shall contain a
screening material to screen construction activities from view. The temporary screening fence shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Economic Development Department and shall be maintained
in good condition (free of tears, holes, crack lines, debris, etc.) at all times. At the primary entrance
to the site, the screening material shall be reduced to a maximum height of four feet to provide
visibility into the site at all times and for public safety purposes. The project site shall also have a
minimum of one sign of quality material depicting the proposed development, which shall include
renderings, project opening date, and City Council information. The signs shall be designed and
installed to the satisfaction of the Economic Development Department and maintained in good
condition (free of tears, graffiti, holes, cracks, fading, debris, etc.) at all times.
40. Fence Coordination. Prior to the demolition of any existing property line walls and/or fences and
construction of a new property line concrete block wants), the developer shall make reasonable
efforts to coordinate and obtain approval from neighboring property owner(s) to remove any
existing walls) and/or fence(s). Written authorization from the neighboring property owner shall
be provided for the removal of an existing wall and construction of a new shared property line wall
upon submittal for plan check.
5511)4JH100' I I i il 187.1 11 A-56
41. Pre -Construction Meeting. Prior to the commencement of construction on the site, the developer
shall schedule a pre -construction meeting between the general superintendent or field
representative and the Planning Division to discuss the approved plans and construction
requirements.
ENGINEERING
42. The Applicant shall submit Improvement Plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer for public
works (off -site) improvements, and on -site improvements. Plan check fees shall be paid in advance.
43. An on -site grading and drainage plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for
approval. Plan shall be 24" x 36", with elevations to nearest 0.01 foot, minimum scale I" = 20'.
Plan shall be prepared by Registered Civil Engineer. Public works improvements may be shown
on this plan. Grading plan check fees must be paid in advance.
44. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations demonstrating adequate site drainage from a 10-year return
frequency storm (25-year frequency in sump areas) prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall
be submitted with the Grading Plan.
45. Driveway slope shall be a minimum slope of one (1) percent for asphalt and .5% for concrete.
46. If utility cuts are excessive in the street the street must have a grid and overlay placed on it per the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
47. All existing off -site public improvements (sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveways, and street paving)
at the development site which are in a damaged condition or demolished due to the proposed work
shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and per OCPFRD Standard Plan.
48. A City Encroachment (Public Works) permit shall be taken out for all work in public right-of-way
prior to start of work. All work shall be done in accordance with APWA Standards and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and must be completed prior to final approval for occupancy or
the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
49. A bond or surety device shall be posted with the City in an amount and type sufficient to cover the
amount of off -site work to be done, as approved by the City Engineer.
50. Pad certification by the Design Civil Engineer and Soil Engineer is required prior to the
commencement of structural construction.
51. Final compaction report prepared by a qualified Soil Engineer shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to the commencement of structural construction.
52. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits or prior to recordation upon subdivision of
land if determined applicable by the City Building Official, the applicant shall submit to the City
for review and approval a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that:
55394.00002 315531'ST I 11 A-57
• Addresses Site Design BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating
reduced or"zero discharge' areas, and conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP.
• Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment
Control BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMPs.
• Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMPs.
ii394JHH10' 31 ii3147.13 11 A-58
Attachment I
Building Articulation and Setback Along Santiago Park (Conceptual)
553N.W0231553187 3 11A-59
EXHIBIT `J"
Security Fencing
N4,0000'31;;3NT13 _ 11A-60
Exhibit J
'
d
LL
co
d
J
M
_
M
!!
t6
E
4a'
O
t
Q
Q
F
d
d
LL
L-
co
d
C
J
ti
tl
T
d
co
E
X
O
Q
Q
Q
t _
Main St
r. d+
Li�' ACr
_e
c en-
— Mao
Broadway
e�
11 A-61
•>•3 a
4=- e
!• iJ4 I�' j C
. f
I
.}41:
! 6 Q ,)F
sz
� W� Z
WQz W`z
RRRR Y a
3 ••> 3 yy-> m"
O 43.,
co G
m i ✓ii n:
.i.}3
it 3d-!
yi. f
.}g.3
3.1.
�5.5•
fi•3-
i.) j p• .
•i.5
RIROCsyKONl0111 a i R u! S �f>•o?• ffiC OeN)ws'i-i�Ww[,[� a , v/s we . M ac �:e.l,�era�.a,q
11 A-62
EXHIBIT 2
LS 11.19.19
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN
STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) (AA NO. 2018-10) AND
ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93)
FOR SAID PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines
and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, Chapter 41, Article 1, Division 1, Section 41-1 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code establishes the necessity of segregating the location of residences,
businesses, trades and industries; regulating the use of buildings, structures, and land
regulation; the location, height, bulk and size of buildings and structures, the size of
yards and open space; the City is divided into land -use districts of such number, shape
and area as may be considered best suited to carry out these regulations and provide
for their enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the regulations are considered necessary in order to: encourage
the most appropriate use of land, conserve and stabilize property value, provide
adequate open spaces for light and air and to prevent and fight fires, prevent undue
concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets and highways, and promote
the health, safety and general welfare of the people, all as part of the general plan of
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has adopted a zoning map which has since
been amended from time to time: and
WHEREAS, AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant') seeks to develop the Addington
Multi -Family Residential Project ("proposed Project'), originally proposed as a 496-unit
multi -family project on a 5.93-acre site at 2525 North Main Street in Santa Ana,
California ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, during the entitlement and environmental review process, and in
response to comments and concerns raised by the public and the City's elected
officials, the Applicant has proposed modifications to the original proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Project as currently proposed now entails, among other things,
(1) demolition of the existing 81,172 square foot vacant two-story office building and
442-space surface parking lot on the Project Site; (2) redevelopment of the 5.93-acre
site with 444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 1 of 10
11 A-63
residential buildings that would provide 256 for -rent multi -family residential units and a
167,253 square foot central parking structure and a 284 space surface level parking lot
with residential and commercial parking; (3) approval of Development Agreement No.
2018-01 between the City of Santa Ana ("City") and Applicant; (4) approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, which would change the Project Site's existing land use
designation of Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC); and
(5) approval of Amendment Application No. 2018-10, which would change the zoning of
the Project Site from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD-93)
designation; and
WHEREAS, the requested Amendment Application would change the zoning
designation of the property from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93
(SD-93) and adoption of Specific Development No. 93 to reflect this change in order to
facilitate the construction of the multi -family housing project; and
WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (State Clearinghouse
No. 2018021031) for the proposed Project was circulated between August 7, 2018
and October 4, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report analyzed the impacts related to
the proposed amendment to the zoning map and adoption of Specific Development
No. 93; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work
study session to overview the project and thirty-two (32) verbal comments were
received (three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition) and nine (9) written
comments were received (one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition); and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission continued a
duly noticed public hearing for the project to January 14, 2019 and held a second
study session to overview the Project and fifty-eight (58) verbal comments were
received (twenty-five (25) in support; thirty-one (31) in opposition and two (2) neutral)
and eleven (11) written comments were received (two (2) in support and nine (9) in
opposition); and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01,
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, seventy-nine (79) members of the
public spoke on the item, thirty (30) speakers supported the project, forty-eight (48)
opposed it and one speaker was neutral. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff,
the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend that the City Council does not certify the EIR, adopt the findings, the
statement of overriding considerations and the mitigation monitoring and reporting
program and deny the Project; and
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 2 of 10
11 A-64
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01, General Plan
Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and solicited
comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-one (61) members of the public spoke on
the item, thirty-eight (38) speakers supported the project, twenty (20) speakers opposed
it and three (3) speakers were neutral and the public hearing was continued to the next
regular adjourned City Council meeting on February 19, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the City Council continued to conduct a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01,
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, one hundred and thirty-one (131)
members of the public spoke on the item, twenty-six (26) speakers supported the
project and one hundred and five (105) speakers opposed it and one hundred and sixty-
six (166) written comments were received with nine (9) in support and one hundred and
fifty-seven (157) in opposition. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public
and the City's consultant team, the City Council voted that the applications go back to
the Planning Commission for reconsideration after further consultation with the
community; and
WHEREAS, in June 2019, the applicant submitted a revised plan consisting of
development 347 multi -family units (59 dwelling units per acre), with 642 parking spaces
(1.85 parking spaces per unit) and parking capacity at 2.0 spaces per unit, within a 4-
story residential building wrapped around a five -level parking structure with an amenity
deck on the sixth -level, private open space, and redesigned the intersection of Main
Street and Walkie Way/Santiago Park Drive to provide access to the project on a 5.93-
acre site (the "June Revised Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the June Revised Plan. At the meeting, seventy-
seven (77) members of the expressed opposition; nine (9) supported the project, and
one speaker was neutral. In addition, one -hundred (100) written comments were
received with six (6) in support and ninety-four (94) in opposition. After hearing all
relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning
Commission vote resulted in an impasse; and
WHEREAS, in October 2019, in response to comments received the applicant
submitted a further revised plan. including redevelopment of the 5.93-acre site with
444,534 square feet of total development, including 277,281 square feet of residential
buildings that would provide 256 for -rent multi -family residential units and a 167,253
square foot central parking structure and a 284 space surface level parking lot which
also reduced the Project's height, increased the Project's setbacks, and modified the
Project entrance ("October Modified Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared "Clarifications to the Final EIR" to determine if
the Modified Project would result in new or substantially increased environmental effects
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 3 of 10
11 A-65
than those analyzed in the EIR such that the EIR would require recirculation prior to its
certification; and
WHEREAS, the Clarifications to the Final EIR include detailed analysis, based
upon substantial evidence, that demonstrate that the Modified Project would not result
in any new or substantially greater impacts than are disclosed in the EIR, no new
mitigation measures beyond those identified in the EIR are required, and no additional
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the EIR, Development Agreement No. 2018-01,
General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 and
solicited comments on the EIR. At the meeting, sixty-two (62) expressed opposition and
two (2) in expressed support the project. In addition, ninety-eight (98) individuals
submitted comments with ninety-four (94) in opposition and four (4) in support; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the
City's consultant team, the Planning Commission by a vote of 3:2, voted to recommend
denial of the project. Since the entitlements require final action by the City Council, the
actions were forwarded to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2019, the City gave public notice of a City Council
public hearing for consideration of Amendment Application No. 2018-10 by advertising
in the Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, and by mailing to
owners of property and residents within 500 feet of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, Amendment
Application No. 2018-10, and Development Agreement No. 2018-01, and the
Environmental Impact Report for the Project, at which hearing members of the public
were afforded an opportunity to comment upon Amendment Application No. 2018-10;
and
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: The City Council has
reviewed and certified Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01; adopted the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and adopted the Statement of
Overriding Consideration for the proposed Project, including this Amendment
Application No. 2018-10.
SECTION 3. AMENDMENT APPLICATION: The Amendment Application consists of
amendments to the zoning map (SDM 6-5-9) and adoption of Specific Development
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 4 of 10
11 A-66
No. 93, as shown in Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: The Amendment Application,
Environmental Impact Report and all supporting documents are on file and available
for public review at Santa Ana City Hall, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California
92702.
SECTION 5. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City Council hereby finds that
the proposed Amendment Application is compatible with the objectives, policies, and
general plan land use programs as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 2018-
06 in that:
A. The proposed Amendment Application will not adversely affect the public
health, safety, and welfare in that the Amendment Application will not result in
incompatible land uses on adjacent properties, inconsistencies with any
General Plan goals or policies, or adverse impacts to the environment.
B. The amendment application to change the zoning designation from Professional
(P) to Specific Development 93 (SD-93) is consistent with Santa Ana Municipal
Code section 41-593.1 for the following reasons:
(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 the proper planning and
development of adjacent and nearby properties.
The site plan has been designed with the vehicular entrance on
Main Street away from the residential neighborhood to the south
and east. In addition, the parking structure and rooftop amenity
deck, which are the tallest building elements are positioned closer
to Main Street, with residential buildings wrapped around the
structure to screen it. There is a 90-foot rear (east) setback
requirement which creates a buffer between the multi -family
buildings and single-family homes. In addition, the existing healthy
trees along the east property line will be protected in place and
new mature trees will be planted or replaced as needed. The wall
along the eastern property line will be increased to 8-feet in height
and the east side of the building will tier in height from two, three,
to four stories to provide a transition in height when compared to
the single -story residential dwellings to the east. The building is
also designed with courtyards rather than one large "box" to
provide open space and variation in the massing. Furthermore, the
units along Edgewood Road will have patios with access to the
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 5 of 10
11 A-67
street to mimic single-family dwelling porches and to connect the
project with the residential neighborhood.
(2) Encouraging, securing and maintaining the orderly and harmonious
appearance, attractiveness and aesthetic development of structures
and grounds in order that the most appropriate use and value thereof
be determined and protected.
The property is a 5.93-acre site with street frontage along Main
Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational,
employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum,
Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of
Orange; the Children's Hospital of Orange County and St.
Joseph's Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential
development would be within close proximity of major
employment centers and retail establishments. The site is also
located just north of the Santa Ana (1-5) freeway which provides
regional access to and from the City. The multi -storied
development will complement the nearby mid -rise office buildings
located along Main Street to the north and west of the site and
the multi -family residential use supports a mixed -use setting. In
addition, the new building will have a variety of materials such as
multiple brick veneers, stone veneer, metal panels, ceramic tile,
metal canopies, flat and metal seamed roofs to assist in creating a
modern contemporary design. The residential development will
replace a potential office use with a residential use. Although a
professional office use is typically considered a low intensity land
use when compared to commercial or industrial uses, issues with
parking, traffic and noise may still arise. When comparing land
uses multi -family uses are more compatible in nature with single-
family residential neighborhoods than office uses.
(3) Providing a method whereby specific development plans are to be
based on the general plan as well as other regulations, programs, and
legislation as may in the judgment of the city be required for the
systematic execution of the general plan.
With approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06, the
Project will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Element. Although the Project requires an amendment to the
Land Use Element to allow for residential use of the property, the
Project still supports and is consistent with several other
overarching goals and policies of the General Plan. For example,
as described in the associated General Plan Amendment No.
2018-06: Housing Element Goal 2, to create diversity of quality
housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 6 of 10
11 A-68
accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household
types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive
community. Land Use Element Goal 4, to protect and enhance
development sites and districts which are unique community assets
that enhance the quality of life. Urban Design Element, Goal 1, to
improve the physical appearance of the City through development of
districts that project a sense of place, positive community image,
and quality environment.
(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.
Development of the Project would result in a substantial change in
views and a significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics.
However, the Project will replace an over 30-year old structure
with a modern building with enhanced landscaping contributing to
the character of the City. Furthermore, a Development Agreement
between the developer/property owner and the City of Santa Ana
has been entered into. Public benefits of the agreement include:
public art, Santiago Park for improvements, Park Santiago
Neighborhood benefits including access to on -site amenities for
Park Santiago residents, security patrol of the residential
neighborhood and Santiago Park, and Park Santiago
Neighborhood for traffic improvements and calming such as street
calming, traffic diversion, and street lights.
(5) Insuring that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public
funds for improvements and beautification of streets and public facilities
shall be protected by exercise of reasonable controls over the character
and design of private buildings, structures and open spaces.
The multi -family residential development will utilize existing
water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure and will not result in the
expansion of infrastructure. In addition, the Project will not result
in the expansion of new or altered police or fire facilities. The
Project will be subject to utility user tax, property taxes based on
the valuation of the new construction and management company
business taxes. The building facades and new landscaping are
designed to deter graffiti, existing sidewalks will be removed and
replaced with new sidewalks that are constructed to City
standards, new street lights will be installed and the City's
Building Security Ordinance will be implemented which includes
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 7 of 10
11 A-69
security and crime preventing measures to help reduce City
expenditures on public services and maintenance. In addition,
the residential development will be subject to all required
development impact fees.
SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and
hold the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments,
agencies, authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other and proceedings
(whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and
alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations,
mediations, and such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions
(collectively "Actions"), brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers,
employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that
challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any
permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees,
agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions
approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such
Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality
Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure
sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or local constitution, statute, law,
ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's
defense, and that Applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs and expenses
directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall
promptly notify the Applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with
Applicant in the defense of the Action.
SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby
declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 8. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: The City Council hereby takes the
following actions:
1. The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving Amendment Application
No. 2018-10 as follows:
A. Subject to compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 8 of 10
11 A-70
Program, the property at 2525 North Main Street shall be amended to
Specific Development No. 93 and Specific Development No. 93 plan shall
be adopted as set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
B. The Amendment Application shall not take effect unless and until
Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 and General Plan Amendment
No. 2018-06, are each certified and approved by the City Council, and
the associated Development Agreement No. 2018-01 is approved by the
City Council and executed by all parties thereto.
SECTION 9. EXECUTION OF ORDINANCE. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and
the Clerk of the Council shall attest and certify to the adoption thereof.
ADOPTED this day of , 2019.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho
City Attorney
Lisa Storck
Assistant City Attorney
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 9 of 10
11 A-71
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, DAISY GOMEZ, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached
Ordinance No. NS-2980 to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on _ 2019 and that said ordinance was published in
accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS-2980
Page 10 of 10
11 A-72
EXHIBIT A
Y 31-0-9 31-49�
I <
y
M�µ0{LY LN A $ v�MxMeRw FAIRHAVENA j
WJNVu[E OR o C1
R1 2 R4 $ a
So 1 nvax lx n1F!
fl1 _
Al nxlx
R1 Nt6rxw W
Al
Al
R1 $ Rtb
PI
R1 R1 R1 S ARovEmsxi si o „
o E 'SFQ Cil vEWR1
S R1
ncv4 w RI.&
o M
mcExMoxll
R1 i R1
wsRm3
F em
$ @ Rr E S l rgT RI eEEG�Nn
o [ e S Rl BEECx o 3:
R1 u R1 R1 s
R1 s } BEECIMbOR i -
p R1
A i Al
LL Rl A.ST
uaENST R1 Rl
^ u CUM w
c4nA Avf' Ri Rx F2 Rl Q
W O Rl
Qi caA: n SWTn c4PA cv mrts 1p Wi e=.._
xt R3_ 5 RI R1 V8 !(�
8 nU Ra is av 5 W CNAV
9.iF40
py nr iinw av
rM0
R2 BrKFALO Rv Rl
ftl 4euw nv Rl
Cl-MO IN. sT 3
R1 8 R1 �
S
naA9 RI caTwru rry ¢
W R1 Rl
R1 Rl a
I 11 O '-P3 $ FIsi SF
Rl
Iz a Ft R1
m x ® ST m sT
�. mM °!
R1
14 R1 R1
19iX ci Cl*�JW R1 "TXS
C R1 RI R1.9 • C
CtMO R1 RI ,.
itlM si 1 c --. •.
&R2TMCl-MO
Ct#10 CIMOII C1 NSI11 GSCt CS
a 17TH ST _
C1 C1 C1 y C1 L5 CS
SVS SP) m SG] g
;,o 1-5-9 C wror onc�onnne 15-9 0<
ZONING DISTRICTS
Al
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL
CSM
SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DIST.
R2
TWD- FAMILY RESIDENCE
-B
PARKING MODIFICATION
Cl
COMMUNLYCOMMERCIAL
GC
GOVERNMENT CENTER
R3
MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE
-GZ
OVERLAY ZONE
C1MD
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - MUSEUM DST.
M1
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
RA
SUBURBAN APARTMENT
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
PRO
DEVELOPMENT
C2
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
M2
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
RE
RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
C4
PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER
0
OPENSPACE
SD
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
-HD2
HEIGHT DISTRICT II
C5
ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL
P
PROFESSIONAL
SP
SPECIFIC PLAN
CR
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
Rl
SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE
fim SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP: 6-5-9 e
CITY OF SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA
11 A-73
EXHIBIT B
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93
2525 North Main Street Development Project
SECTION 1 — APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE
The Specific Development Zoning District No. 93 (SD-93) for the 2525 North Main Street
development project is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26 Section 41-593 et seq. of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code. SD-93 contains specific standards and regulations for the purpose
of establishing land use regulations and development and operational standards for the project
site. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code are
in effect unless expressly superseded by regulations contained in this ordinance. The
boundaries of the 2525 North Main Street development project shall be defined pursuant to
Attachment 1 (attached hereto and incorporated a though fully set forth herein). The 2525
North Main Street Development District shall have two zones, Zone 1 and Zone 2, as depicted
in Attachment 1.
SECTION 2 — PURPOSE
The Specific Development Plan No. 93 for the 2525 North Main Street project consists of
standards and regulations established for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and
general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by promoting and enhancing the value
of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property.
ObeectiXes
The objectives of the 2525 North Main Street project specific development plan
include provisions of the following:
Promote the City's image as providing high -quality residential projects for
individuals and families of all income groups.
2. Create a clean and safe environment for the City's residents, workers, and
visitors.
Contribute to the North Main Street corridor by providing a high density
residential development that supports nearby cultural, office and
commercial uses.
4. Provide regulations that allow development, in response to market
conditions while achieving overall City and community goals.
Provide parking opportunities for nearby museum uses and/or commercial
uses.
1 of 12
11 A-74
SECTION 3 — Uses permitted in Zone 1
The following uses are permitted in the SD-93 district:
(a) A maximum of 256 multiple -family dwelling units not exceeding a density of 58
dwelling units/acre.
(1) The unit mix shall be comprised of:
a. 70% studio and one -bedroom units
b. 30% two -bedroom and three -bedroom units
(2) Unit square footages ranging from
a. 556 to 592 square foot studios
b. 633 to 930 square foot one -bedrooms
c. 909 to 1,179 square foot two -bedrooms
d. 1,362 square foot three -bedrooms
(b) Home occupations, pursuant to section 41-192.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
(c) Accessory recreational rooms, dog wash, club room, fitness room, wellness center, bike
rooms, pools and spas for residential use.
SECTION 4 — Uses subject to a conditional use permit in Zone 1
(a) Childcare facilities caring for more than eight (8), but no more than fourteen (14)
children.
SECTION 5 —,Uses permitted in Zone 2
(a) Surface parking lot with 180 spaces (approximate 1.4 acre lot) to be used by a
commercial, museum, or professional offices uses.
(b) Parking may be shared with the residential development through a shared parking
agreement.
(c) All other uses and/or structures are prohibited.
SECTION 6 — Maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR)
The maximum authorized building intensity for the 2525 North Main Street project is a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 1.43, including residential areas, community -serving areas (e.g., leasing
office, gym and club room) and interior corridors.
SECTION 7 — Minimum lot size in Specific Development No. 93
The minimum lot size is 1.4 acres.
2of12
11 A-75
SECTION 8 — Minimum street frontage in Specific Development No. 93
Lots shall have a minimum street frontage of at least 250 feet.
SECTION 9 — Building height in Specific Development No. 93
(a) No residential structure shall exceed 50 feet (four stories) in height, as measured from
the lowest adjacent grade of the structure to the top of the structure.
(b) The six level parking structure (five levels with one level subterranean) and amenity
deck shall not exceed 61 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of
the structure.
(c) The stair tower and elevator tower shall not exceed 74 feet as measured from the lowest
adjacent grade to the top of structure.
(d) Along the east property line the building shall tier from two, three, and four stories as
shown on the approved site plan.
SECTION 10 — Setback standards in Specific Development No. 93
(a) North setback. A minimum building setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided between
the property line and buildings along Santiago Park.
(b) South setback. A minimum building setback of one hundred thirty-four (134) feet shall
be provided from Edgewood Road.
(c) West setback. A minimum building setback of twelve (12) feet shall be provided
between the property line and buildings along Main Street.
(d) East setback. A minimum building setback of ninety (90) feet shall be provided
between the property line and buildings.
SECTION 11 — Off-street parking standard in Specific Development No. 93
(a) The minimum off-street parking requirements for the project are as follows:
(1) 2.0 spaces per unit shall be provided (407 spaces within the parking
structure and 104 space surface level parking lot).
(2) Parking stalls shall not be less than eight (8) feet six (6) inches wide and
eighteen (18) feet long. Double -striping is required, with the width of
stalls measured from lines midway between each pair of stripes.
Structural, mechanical, utility or similar appurtenances are only
permitted adjacent to required stall areas if the required width of the stall
is increased at least six (6) inches and if the appurtenance is not located
3 of 12
11 A-76
so as to interfere with safe and free parking movement, car door
opening, or of visibility.
(3) Aisles to and from parking stalls shall not be less than: Twenty-three
(23) feet wide for 90-degree parking.
(4) Drive aisles shall not dead-end; a turn -around method be provided to
allow cars to exit if all stalls are occupied
(5) The interior of the parking structure without natural lighting shall be
painted white or shall be equipped with lighting devices which will
provide a minimum maintained two (2) footcandle of light on the
parking surface during hours of darkness. Subterranean parking areas
shall maintain lighting twenty-four (24) hours a day. Lighting devices
shall be protected by vandal resistant covers.
(6) A minimum of ten (10) bicycle spaces shall be provided onsite. The
design and materials shall comply with the approved materials board
submitted for the project during building plan check.
(7) Prior to submittal into building plan check, a parking management plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review, identifying
parking per unit, and guest parking. The plan is subject to approval of
the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency. Onsite
parking shall be provided for residents and visitors of the Project and
the parking demand of the Project site shall be actively monitored.
Property owner "Owner" shall continually monitor and take appropriate
measures to manage the parking demand of the Project site to mitigate
the use of offsite parking spaces on private or public properties and/or
right-of-way.
SECTION 12 — Vehicular Access in Specific Development No. 93
The development shall prepare all necessary plans per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer to:
(a) Provide public access via Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive and Main Street. The
Santiago Park Entrance design and construction shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City's Planning & Building, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Agency Directors, including residential units to front onto
Santiago Park, Main Street, and the Santiago Park Drive entrance.
(b) Reconstruct the existing intersection of Main Street and Walkie Way/Park Santiago
Drive to accommodate the southerly relocation the east leg of the intersection,
including, but not limited to:
Removal of all portions of the existing east leg of the intersection.
Construction of PCC curb, gutter and sidewalk along the east side of Main
Street.
iii. Reconstruct pavement within the intersection.
4of12
11 A-77
iv. Modification of the Traffic Signal for the Walkie Way/Park Santiago Drive
intersection for the intended signal operation shall include new signals
poles, traffic cabinet, install conduits and wiring, traffic signal,
interconnect, provide Accessible Pedestrian Signals pedestrian push
buttons, vehicle/bike video detection, signing and striping as needed to
accommodate the proposed entrance to the development and Santiago Park.
(c) Remove and reconstruct the raised -curb median in Main Street between Walkie Way
and Edgewood Road to provide increased left turn pocket lengths per Attachment 2,
including, but not limited to:
i. Reconstruct asphalt pavement in Main Street to maintain standard cross
slopes, positive drainage and smooth vertical transitions.
ii. Provide landscaping and irrigation in the median.
iii. Modify the existing channelization striping extending through intersections.
(d) Coordinate with Caltrans to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with City of Santa Ana
to implement traffic signal synchronization timing along Main Street between the 1-5
ramps and the modified traffic signal at Main Street and Walkie Way -Santiago Park to
enhance traffic flow and reduce congestions between city streets and the State Highway
System. The scope of work shall include but not limited to preparation of cooperative
agreement, any required improvements, preparation and implementation of timing
plans, and required permits.
(e) The Emergency Vehicular Access Lane (Fire Lane) with access to Edgewood Road
shall be gated per Orange County Fire Authority and City Public Works Agency
requirements and standards. The emergency lane shall not be used for trash staging,
trash loading and/or move-ins/outs. No other vehicular access or curb approach
openings will be approved on Edgewood Road for the project.
SECTION 13 — Open Space standard in Specific Development_No. 93
(a) Pedestrian Walkways and Open Space. The project will provide a minimum of 15% of
the total lot size shall be open space in the form of common, landscaped open space
areas, pools, spas, deck, courtyard and lobby, interior community room, dining room,
gym, business room, etc.
(b) Courtyards.
(1) East courtyards shall be a minimum of 34 feet wide by 100 feet in depth and shall
not contain any pools, spas or recreational rooms.
(2) West courtyard shall be a minimum of 48 feet wide by 58 feet in depth.
(c) Private Open Space. Each residential unit shall have a patio or balcony a minimum of
50 square feet in size.
5of12
11 A-78
SECTION 14 — Walls/Fences standard in Specific Development No. 93
(a) East property line. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a solid block wall with
a minimum height of eight (8) feet shall be constructed along the east property line.
The block wall shall be designed to contain a decorative cap, regularly -spaced
decorative pilasters, and a decorative finish in accordance to the design provisions
contained within the most recent version of the City's design guidelines.
(b) North property line. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, a new wrought
iron fence shall be constructed. The fence shall also incorporate decorative pilasters
located a maximum of 50 feet on center. Any walls and/or fences are limited to eight
(8) feet in height.
(c) South and West property line walls are prohibited. Within the front and street side
setbacks, walls and/or fences shall be limited to four (4) feet in height.
SECTION 15 — Landscape standard in Specific Development No. 93
(a) A Landscape Plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the
Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Irrigation Plan shall include an irrigation system layout with the location of
controllers and points of connection with data on valve sizes and gallons per minute
(G.P.M.), the size and location of sleeves and all spray heads, including the location of
conventional systems and drip systems; an irrigation legend with complete
specifications; irrigation notes and construction details of all assemblies and
components; a recommended irrigation schedule, preferably on an annual basis; and a
summary block on the initial page of submitted plans that will present the above
information clearly and accurately. The landscape plan shall include a Plant Legend
containing: plant symbol, scientific name of plant material, common name of plant
material, plant container size, and plant spacing. Very low, low and medium water
usage plant materials are encouraged. The landscape plan shall provide a cross section
of the eastern planter showing the planter at time of planting, after five (5) years and at
full maturity. The cross section shall demonstrate the landscaping will adequately
screen the project from the adjacent residential uses along the eastern portion of the
Property. A minimum size of 36-inch box trees shall be planted along street setbacks,
open space areas and shared parking areas.
(b) Per the arborist report dated May 4, 2018:
(1) Retain and protect in place the existing eleven (11) healthy Ficus benjamina
trees adjacent to the east property line.
(2) Remove the existing eight (8) unhealthy trees (Liquidambar styracii lua) in
the eastern planter and plant eight (8) minimum size of 60-inch box trees in
their place.
6of12
11 A-79
(3) Plant new vertical and canopy specimen trees with a minimum size of 48-
inch box, 20-feet on center in the east planter within 150 feet of the front
property line and within 150 feet of the rear property line.
(4) The planter along the east property line shall be sized to allow for future
growth and health of the trees.
(5) To the extent feasible, all other healthy mature trees on the property shall be
protected and preserved. If the perseveration of the existing healthy, mature
trees is not feasible because of the location of the approved structures on the
property, the Owner shall work with Staff to evaluate the feasibility of
relocating the healthy tree(s) to other locations on the property.
(c) Project Landscaping: Landscaping shall be compliant with the City of Santa Ana's
Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Chapter 41, Article XVI of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code. All landscape areas shall have a fully automatic irrigation system
(including spray or drip) as required by the City of Santa Ana Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance.
(d) All meters shall be appropriately screened from public view with trellis work and vines
or hedge -type shrubs, or be incorporated into the residential structure.
(e) Installation: Landscaping for the project shall be completed in phases by building and
shall be installed and inspected prior to occupancy of units within that building. The
Owner shall be responsible for maintaining all common area landscaping within the
development.
(f) Maintenance: All plant material shall be maintained per Section 41-609 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code.
SECTION 16 — Residential Si2na2e in Specific Development No. 93
(a) Signage for the project shall be consistent with Section 41-868 of the Santa Ana
Municipal Code.
SECTION 17 — Architectural Design in Specific Development No. 93
(a) Exterior materials. Prior to submittal into building plan check, the Owner shall submit
revised architectural elevations subject to the review and approval of the Executive
Director of the Planning and Building Agency. Exterior materials and finishes for the
project shall comply with the approved materials board submitted for the project
including stone veneer, brick veneer, ceramic tile, metal canopies, flat and metal
seamed roofs. All trash enclosures and similar ancillary structures shall match the
texture, material and color of the building.
(1) The east building wall windows (at the 90 foot building setback) shall be
opaque or clerestory (above eye level) windows.
7 of 12
11 A-80
(2) The east wall of the parking structure shall incorporate screen materials and
be designed to screen the views from the amenity deck or parking structure to
the neighborhood.
(b) Green Building. Alternative Transportation and Energy Source, Resource
Conservation, and LEED Certification. The project shall be constructed to Silver
Standard or better LEED equivalent and shall at the minimum, incorporate bike lockers,
bike sharing programing, electric vehicle charging stations, rain capturing systems,
grey water capturing systems, and to the extent feasible, automobile sharing
programing.
(c) Public Art. Public Art shall be installed, and maintained with a value equivalent to one-
half of one percent (0.5%) of the total construction cost of the Project. Total
construction cost shall mean all design, engineering and construction costs. A public
art plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City no later than one hundred eight
(180) days before final approval for occupancy or the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy and the approved art shall be installed prior to final approval for occupancy
of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project.
(d) Storage. A minimum of 250 cubic feet of storage, in addition to interior bedroom
closets, shall be provided with minimum dimensions of 4 feet by 8 feet per unit.
(e) Hardscape materials. Enhanced paving materials shall be installed at the Main Street
driveway entrance. The actual paving materials shall be approved by the Planning
Division.
(f) Lighting standards/fixtures. The light fixtures are to integrate design elements of the
building and landscape architecture. Lighting is to be designed to confine the direct
rays of the artificial lighting within the boundaries of the development. Specifications
of light standards/fixtures and photometrics plan shall be submitted to Planning
Division for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permits.
(g) Composite Utility Plan. Composite utilities shall not be allowed within required
parking, turnaround and landscape areas or on any fagade facing a public street.
(h) Mechanical Equipment, Appurtenances, and Conduits. All mechanical equipment,
heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, satellite dish systems, solar panels,
thermal solar heaters, utility meters, above ground utility and fire safety connections
will be, screened, located out of public view or be architectural integrated into the
project design within designated rooms, inside walls, behind parapets, or through a
combination of landscape and hardscape materials.
(i) Trash Enclosures. Trash bins shall be stored in designated trash enclosures. There shall
be an onsite designated trash staging area only to be used on service days and the
staging area and bins shall not disrupt vehicular use of the driveway. The minimum
requirements needed to service the location shall be clearly indicated on the plans and
8of12
11 A-81
subject to the approval of the Public Works Agency.
SECTION 18 —Property Maintenance in Specific Development No. 93
(a) Onsite Property Manager. The Project shall include 24-hour on -site Property
Management services and personnel. Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for the
on -site personnel shall be provided to the following City Agencies on an ongoing basis:
(1) Police Department
(2) Fire Authority
(3) Planning and Building Agency
(4) Community Development Agency
(b) Maintenance. The property shall be maintained free of trash, debris and graffiti. Graffiti
shall be removed within 24-hours after its appearance in accordance with Section 10-
227 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
(c) Crime Free Housing. Prior to submittal into building plan check, a Crime Free Housing
Plan shall be submitted for review. The Plan shall be approved prior to occupancy of
the first unit and shall be implemented and administered by the Owner.
(d) Building Security. All structures and parking lots shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 8, Article II, Division 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (Building Security
Ordinance).
(e) Emergency Evacuation Plan. An approved Emergency Evacuation Plan (EEP) from
City Police and Fire Protection agencies shall be on file for the project. Up-to-date 24-
hour emergency contact information for the on -site personnel shall be provided to the
City on an ongoing basis and the approved EEP shall be kept onsite and also be
submitted to the following City Agencies:
(1) Police Department
(2) Fire Authority
(3) Planning and Building Agency
(4) Community Development Agency
(f) On Going Property Maintenance. Developer (and the owner of the property upon which
the authorized use and/or authorized improvements are located if different from the
Developer) shall execute a maintenance agreement with the City of Santa Ana which
shall be recorded against the property and which shall be in a form reasonably
satisfactory to the City Attorney. The maintenance agreement shall contain covenants,
conditions and restrictions relating to the following:
(1) Compliance with operational conditions applicable during any period(s) of
construction or major repair (e.g., proper screening and securing of the
construction site; implementation of proper erosion control, dust control and
noise mitigation measure; adherence to approved project phasing etc.).
9of12
11 A-82
(2) Compliance with ongoing operational conditions, requirements and
restrictions, as applicable (including but not limited to hours of operation,
security requirements, the proper storage and disposal of trash and debris,
enforcement of the parking management plan, and/or restrictions on certain
uses).
(3) Ongoing compliance with approved design and construction parameters,
signage parameters and restrictions as well as landscape designs, as
applicable.
(4) Ongoing maintenance, repair and upkeep of the property and all
improvements located thereupon at all times (including but not limited to
controls on the proliferation of trash and debris about the property; the proper
and timely removal of graffiti; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of
damaged, vandalized and/or weathered buildings, structures and/or
improvements; the timely maintenance, repair and upkeep of exterior paint,
parking striping, lighting and irrigation fixtures, walls and fencing, publicly
accessible bathrooms and bathroom fixtures, landscaping and related
landscape improvements and the like, as applicable).
(5) If Developer and the owner of the property are different (e.g., if the applicant
is a tenant or licensee of the property or any portion thereof), both the
applicant and the owner of the property shall be signatories to the maintenance
agreement and both shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with
its terms.
(6) The maintenance agreement shall further provide that any party responsible
for complying with its terms shall not assign its ownership interest in the
property or any interest in any lease, sublease, license or sublicense, unless
the prospective assignee agrees in writing to assume all of the duties and
obligations and responsibilities set forth under the maintenance agreement.
(7) The maintenance agreement shall contain provisions relating to the
enforcement of its conditions by the City and shall also contain provisions
authorizing the City to recover costs and expenses which the City may incur
arising out of any enforcement and/or remediation efforts which the City may
undertake in order to cure any deficiency in maintenance, repair or upkeep or
to enforce any restrictions or conditions upon the use of the property. The
maintenance agreement shall further provide that any unreimbursed costs
and/or expenses incurred by the City to cure a deficiency in maintenance or
to enforce use restrictions shall become a lien upon the property in an amount
equivalent to the actual costs and/or expense incurred by the City.
(8) The execution and recordation of the maintenance agreement shall be a
condition precedent to the issuance of final approval for any construction
permit related to this entitlement.
10 of 12
11 A-83
i
ATTACHMENT 1
" L.-
11 of 12
11 A-84
ATTACHMENT 2
12 of 12
11 A-85
EXHIBIT 3
November 19, 2019
VIA HAND DELIVERY
VIA E-MAIL CITYCOUNCIL@SANTA-ANA.ORG
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Newmeyer & Dillion 1. LP
6q5 Dove Street
Fifth Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949 854 7000
Charles S. Krolikowski
Charles.Krolikowski@ndif.com
Re: Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (the "Addington")
Located at 2525 N. Main Street
Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031)
Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association ("PSNA"), a coalition of
interested property located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"), and in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), we submit this written comment for
consideration and inclusion in the administrative record in advance of tonight's hearing
on the proposed residential development project commonly referred to as Magnolia at
the Park Multi -Family Residential Project or the Addington, located at 2525 N. Main
Street ("Project"). This evening, the Santa Ana City Council ("City Council") must
consider, after the Planning Commission's denial, the Project's proposed entitlements
and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No.
2018021031) ("FEIR").
PSNA respectfully requests that the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
affirm the Planning Commission's denial in accordance with recommendation one, both
on the grounds outlined in PSNA's November 18, 2019, letter and on the grounds
detailed herein. PSNA submits that the Planning Commission correctly rejected the
hastily modified Project, including its FEIR. Indeed, it is the City's responsibility to
independently ensure that the FEIR meets CEQA's requirements. The City, as lead
agency, must guarantee that the FEIR sufficiently identifies and mitigates for the
Project's significant environmental impacts. There is no excuse for the City's failure to
do so. As such, the City Council should reject the proposed entitlements and uphold
the Planning Commission's decision, as they are inconsistent with the policies of the
City's General Plan ("General Plan") and are not supported by a legally adequate FEIR.
3917.101 / 8509864.1
Las Vegas I Newport Beach I Walnut Creek 11 A-86
newmeyerdillion.com
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 2
The FEIR is insufficient in many ways. The FEIR is legally inadequate because the
Project description incorporates significant new information without providing an
opportunity for meaningful public review and comment. At the same time, the FEIR still
fails to meaningfully address or respond to many of the 163 written comments. Thus,
the City Council should take no action on the FEIR, prepare its own, independent EIR,
and, at the very least, recirculate the FEIR to allow an opportunity for truly meaningful
public comment.
If the City certifies this FEIR as -is, it will remain subject to significant challenge. The
City may base its decision not to certify the FEIR on its failure to comply with standards
governing the legal adequacy of EIRs generally. It may also determine that the FEIR
is inadequate because revisions to the FEIR are required to respond to changes
to the Project, changes in circumstances, or new information arising after the
FOR was completed. At the very least, the FEIR should be recirculated for proper
public comment before it is certified.
In addition to its written objection to any Project approval, this written comment also
serves as PSNA's formal request for written notice in advance of any future meetings
regarding the City's consideration of the Project, including, without limitation, the filing of
any notice of determination related to the FEIR.
1. THE PROJECT'S HISTORY, MULTIPLE MODIFICATIONS, AND
SOLICITATION OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS
FOR THEIR SUPPORT.
The Project's history, compared to its most current iteration, is quite different from when
the Planning Commission first held a public hearing to consider the Applicant's then -
proposed 496-unit (84 per acre) development project. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28,
2019, 2-1-2-3 [discussing Project background and various modifications].) City staff
recommended a reduction in development density and denial of the Project as it was
then proposed. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3.) The City Council agreed
and the Applicant modified the Project. (City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3.) This
cycle continued until the Applicant again informed City staff that it would make further
modifications before again seeking to proceed before City Council. (See City Staff
Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3.)
The latest modifications have culminated in the present, unrecognizable and rashly
considered Project —a far cry from the initial Project as considered and evaluated in the
FEIR. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-3-2-4 [modified Project in its current
iteration].) The modified Project remains on approximately 5.93 acres of property and
would still require the complete demolition of an existing two-story, 81,172 square foot
office building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [project location
information]; see also, id. at p. 2-5 [discussing demolition of existing office building].)
The intensity of the proposed use and requisite Project construction (demolition of an
3917.101 18509864.1
2
11 A-87
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 3
existing building) stands in harsh contrast to the surrounding, far less intensive land
uses, including the designated open space "Santiago Park" to the north and the single
family residential homes — R1 to the east and south. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28,
2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [Project location information and adjacent uses].)
On or about October 28, 2019, the modified Project came before the Planning
Commission for review. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1 [listing date of
hearing].) The Planning Commission denied approval of the Project. (See Official
Video of Planning Comm'n Regular Meeting.)'
In its present iteration before the City Council, the Project purports to construct a 256-
unit multifamily housing project at 58 dwelling units per acre, with 180 surface parking
spaces proposed. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.)
Entitlements requested include the following:
• Adoption of an ordinance approving a development agreement between the
Applicant and the City, identified as Development Agreement No. 2018-01;
• Adoption of a resolution approving a general plan amendment to re -designate the
property from Professional & Administrative Office ("PAO") to District Center
("DC"), identified as General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06;
• Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment application to rezone the
property from Professional ("P") to Specific Development No. 93 ("SD-93"),
despite language in Division 26 that requires any specific development to
maintain the values of the surrounding properties; and,
• Adoption of a resolution certifying the FEIR, including adoption of environmental
findings of fact under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
adoption of a purported "Clarification to the Final EIR" (City Staff Rept. at p. 2-2),
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Project will cause a substantial and significant deprivation of the property rights of
adjacent residents and businesses. For example, in public comment provided to the
City Council on or about September 3, 2019, a report detailed the potential home price
devaluation in the Park Santiago neighborhood that would result from the development
of the proposed Project. (See City Council, Sept. 3, 2019, [public comment re Park
Santiago price devaluation resulting from Project].) The Project Applicant took a unique
approach in response to this apparent situation. Specifically, it appears that the
Applicant solicited surrounding property owners' support by offering a substantial
The meeting minutes are not yet available, accordingly, the video is available at
https://santaana.�,,ranicus.com/ModiaP]ayer.php?view id=2&clip id=2527 (last accessed Nov. 13, 2019, on file).
3917,101 /8509864.1
2
11 A-88
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 4
monetary sum (up to $35,000) in exchange for an agreement not to object to the I
Project.
2
THE FEIR'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION MAY BE INADEQUATE, RESULTING
IN SIMILARLY FLAWED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES.
An environmental impact report, commonly referred to as an "EIR," is at the heart of
CEQA. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15124.) A proper EIR provides the public and
governmental decision -makers with detailed information on a project's likely
environmental effects, describes the ways of minimizing such effects, and considers
potential alternatives to a project. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1, 21061, 21100
An accurate project description "is the sine qua non of an informative and legally
sufficient EIR." (County of Inyo v. City of L.A. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193, 199
(hereafter County of Inyo).) When a proposed project is accompanied by an inaccurate
or incomplete description, it undermines CEQA by drawing "a red herring across the
path of public input." (Id. at pp. 193, 199.) A court will reject an EIR with an incomplete
or inaccurate project description because, as the court stated in County of Inyo v. City of
L.A.:
Only through an accurate view of the project may affected
outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's
benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation
measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal
(i.e., the "no project alternative") and weigh other alternatives
in the balance.
(Id. at p. 198.)
Because CEQA defines "project" as "the whole of an action," (14 Cal. Code Regs., §
15378; see Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213
Cal.AppAth 1277, 1297; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012)
211 Cal.AppAth 1209, 1220 (hereafter Banning Ranch)), an EIR must also describe the
entire proposed project —not a piecemeal version. (East Sacramento Partnership for a
Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293; Banning Ranch, 211
Cal.AppAth at p. 1222; Communities for a Better Envt. v. City of Richmond (2010) 184
Cal.AppAth 70, 98.) A project description must include future expansion or later phases
of a project that will foreseeably result from project approval. (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 (hereafter Laurel
Heights); 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126 [EIR's impact analysis must consider all phases
of project].) Additionally, an EIR's project description must be internally consistent. If
not, it cannot provide a vehicle for informed public participation in the decision -making
process. (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 197 [shifting EIR description from
groundwater pumping to replacing the entire aqueduct system].)
3917.101 / 8509864.1
11 A-89
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 5
Here, the Project proposes a large-scale planned residential development that violates
the General Plan as discussed in detail in our letter regarding the same, dated
November 18, 2019. Moreover, under the terms of the existing entitlements and the
existing Project description in the FEIR, the Project is capable of a much higher
maximum density than that being considered in the environmental review. As such, the
Project description may be inaccurate because it fails to identify, and thus properly
consider, changes to the existing land use designations and the maximum allowable
density based on the proposed entitlements to the same.
3. THE FEIR MAY IMPROPERLY ASSUME A POST -DEVELOPMENT
BASELINE.
The idea of a "baseline" in the context of the FEIR is fundamental to its legitimacy. As a
general matter, a baseline is important in part because it operates as the starting point
by which all future comparisons are made. It follows that an EIR, like the FEIR here,
which purports to report the environmental impacts of a proposed project, must start at
the beginning. In other words, the baseline used as the yardstick by which relative
change is measured must, itself, be a sound source for comparison.
Experts explain the concept of a false baseline as the shifting "waistline' problem. For
many of the same reasons, it would be difficult to determine weight loss if the starting
scale measured you 30 pounds underweight. An EIR is likewise of little value if
potential impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures are evaluated relative to a false
or shifting starting point. CEQA acknowledges this by defining how a project must
determine its baseline. According to Title 14 Section 15125(a), a baseline condition
must reflect the existing conditions, applicable plan designations, and zoning for the
Project area in effect. Yet, the FEIR's impact analyses and conclusions are often based
on the assumed approval of the underlying entitlements it purports to evaluate. Similar
issues exist throughout the FEIR, as well as just in the Project description.
Separately, the Project fails to properly consider its impacts relative to the applicable
general, regional, and specific plans. (14 Cal. Code Regs., §15125, subd. (d).)
Ultimately, CEQA requires an evaluation of the Project in its existing environmental and
regulatory setting —not in a vacuum. Accordingly, an EIR must discuss and evaluate
inconsistencies between the proposed Project and its applicable general, specific, and
regional plans. (Ibid. ["applicable" plans have been adopted and legally apply to a
proposed project].)
Here, existing land use designations allow for a much lower maximum density for the
entire Project area. This lower density is consistent with the applicable general,
regional, and specific plans, but entirely inconsistent with the high -density development
proposed by this Project. Thus, because the FEIR evaluates the Project against a false
or shifting baseline that is inconsistent with existing baseline conditions, the resulting
analyses likewise fail, likely rendering the FEIR legally insufficient.
3917.101 1 8509864.1
�l
V
5
11 A-90
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 6
4. ULTIMATELY, THE CITY MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INADEQUATE
FEIR.
CEQA compliance must occur before the City approves the Project. When a public
agency gives a project "approval" it "commits to a definite course of action in regard to a
project." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 1532, subd. (a).) In Save Tara v.
City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 CalAth 116, 130-132, the Court struck down a
project, finding that the city violated CEQA because it had impermissibly committed
itself to the project before completing an adequate CEQA review. While an applicant's
consultant may prepare an EIR, that does not relieve the City from its independent duty
to review and exercise judgment over the document. Indeed, the City must
independently review, evaluate, and exercise judgment over the document and the
issues it raises and addresses. (Friends of La Vina v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232
Cal.App.3d 1446, 1452; Pub. Res. Code, § 21082.1.) Ultimately, the City will be the
one left holding the bag for certification of an inadequate EIR. (Mission Oaks
Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara (1998) 65 Cal.AppAth 713, 723-724.)
Here, the adequacy of the FEIR's Project description is inextricably linked to the
adequacy of its analyses of environmental effects. If the description, baseline, and
consistency requirements are not met —the resulting environmental analyses will be
similarly flawed. (See Laurel Heights, supra; 47 Cal.3d 376 [EIR failed to describe or
analyze project accurately].) For example, if an EIR bases its cumulative impact
analyses on general plan projections, it must explain why these projections function as
a realistic predictor of related impacts. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15130, subd.
(b)(1)(B).) Moreover, a general plan's projections of future growth and related impacts
are an inadequate basis for an EIR's cumulative impact analysis if the plan's projections
do not cover a sufficiently wide area or exclude relevant data. (See Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [no explanation of why analysis of
cumulative air quality impacts was limited to Central Valley]; Citizens to Preserve the
Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421 [air quality analysis defective for
failure to include contribution to pollution from offshore oil operations].)
This is particularly true in situations like those at issue here, where the Project was
originally envisioned at a higher density. Because the FOR may rely on inaccurate
estimates of projected development density, the analyses that flow from that estimate
may be similarly flawed.
In addition to the potential issues identified in this comment and the various additional
comments submitted, the FEIR also may fail to identify, discuss, or mitigate potential
significant impacts in the transportation and circulation section. For example, back-up
of southbound traffic on N. Main Street between Edgewood Road and Walkie Way has
the potential to significantly increase traffic and block intersections. The Project is
proposing to reduce the distance between these intersections, while adding traffic to the
back-up of traffic. In the technical studies for the project, information is calculated that
3917.101 18509864.1
11 A-91
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 7
shows this back-up increasing into the future, but it was not evaluated or mitigated in
the report text. This is important especially considering the overly wide intersection
being created with the project at Walkie Way.
Once the FEIR is revised to include an accurate Project description, then additional
substantive issues may be raised and addressed. PSNA reserves its right to submit
supplemental information and evidence up to the final public hearing on the Project. g
(See, e.g., Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management (1997) 60
Cal.AppAth 1109, 1119-1120 [applicant has right to present comments "prior to the
close of the public hearing on the project."]; Coal. for Student Action v. City of Fullerton
(1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197 [same principle].)
5. THE FEIR SHOULD BE RECIRCULATED BECAUSE IT INCLUDES
SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION.
An EIR must be recirculated if significant new information is added, in which case,
further public and agency review is required. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; 14
Cal. Code Regs., § 15088.5.) The Public Resources Code says the following with
respect to mandatory circulation prior to certification:
When significant new information is added to an
environmental impact report after notice has been given
pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred
pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to
certification, the public agency shall give notice again
pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to
Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the
environmental impact report.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1.)
New information is "significant" where the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the
public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. (See Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of
Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.AppAth 91, 106-109 [finding the revisions to the air quality
analysis and hydrology and water quality impact analysis "problematic"] (hereafter
"Spring Valley') [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of
California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1129 (hereafter "Laurel Heights 11")] ["the California
Supreme Court] held that new information is 'significant,' within the meaning of section
21092.1, only if as a result of the additional information 'the EIR is changed in a way
that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial
adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such
an effect.' (Accord, [Guidelines], § 15088.5, subd. (a).)"].)
3917.101 / 8509864.1
11 A-92
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 8
For example, the Spring Valley Court found revisions to the air quality impacts analysis,
as well as the hydrology and water quality impact analyses "problematic," as the new
analyses constituted significant new information requiring recirculation under Section
21902.1. (Spring Valley, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at pp. 108-109.) As to the air quality
impacts analysis, the revisions analyzed the project's consistency with several general
plan air quality policies and implementation measures. The Court found as follows with
respect to the new information on air quality:
As there is insufficient evidence to support the City's finding
the project is consistent with these two implementation
measures (see pt. I, ante), the information discloses a
substantial adverse environmental effect.
(Id. at p. 108.) Ultimately, the Court found that the revisions constituted significant new
information requiring recirculation because their "breadth, complexity, and purpose"
deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on an ostensibly feasible
way to mitigate a substantial, adverse environmental effect. (ld. at pp. 108-109; see
also Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001)
87 Cal.AppAth 99, 107 (hereafter "Save our Peninsula") ["We conclude that the EIR in
this case did not comply with CEQA in its treatment of several critical water issues.
Because of these inadequacies, the Board's action certifying the EIR and approving the
project constituted an abuse of discretion."]; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible
Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 421, as modified (Apr.
18, 2007) [finding that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated for public
comment].)
Similarly here, the FEIR incorporates substantial and significant new information and
analyses that must be allowed to undergo further public review. For example, the FEIR
for the first time appears to include an Arborist Report as a designed mitigation measure
with respect to the existing mature trees that the Project proposes to remove. (See City
Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7; see also, id, at p. 2-38 [proposed statement of findings
discussing certain Project Design Features "PDFs" that will be implemented like
mitigation measures based on the Arborist Report].) This additional measure also
purportedly identifies eight trees in an unhealthy condition recommended for removal.
(See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) The City also acknowledges that this removal
will require further review by the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee,
but that it "will occur at a later date[.]" (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) But,
CEQA contemplates a full and complete environmental review that occurs prior to action
on the Project —not at some later date after the environmental document has already
been certified. If the latter were true, CEQA would be rendered meaningless.
Moreover, as the statement of overriding considerations acknowledges, the site could
be used by one -special -status wildlife species: the western mastiff bat. (See City Staff
Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of overriding considerations].) In fact, the
3917.101 / 8509864.1
11 A-93
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 9
species has a "the site could be used by one special -status wildlife species, the western
mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms[,]" many of
which are being removed for the first time in the FEIR due to a new mitigation measure
and Arborist's Report designating certain existing trees and palms as unhealthy and
qualified for removal. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of
overriding considerations].) Overall, the FEIR fails to adequately address significant
concerns raised by state and federal agencies, independent scientists, conservation
organizations, tribal representatives, and members of the public directly affected by this
new mitigation measure. As a result of these and other related deficiencies, the FEIR
may fail to fully inform the public and decision -makers of the Project's significant
environmental impacts and to analyze and/or mitigate these impacts in accordance with
CEQA.
Failing to recirculate given these changes to the most significant and unavoidable
impacts would result in an inability of the public or agencies to meaningfully comment
on the Project's environmental impacts. The City should thus allow the FEIR to be
recirculated and evaluated.
6. CONCLUSION.
The adequacy of an EIR's project description is inextricably linked to the adequacy of its
analyses of environmental effects. If the description, baseline, and consistency
requirements are not met, the resulting environmental analyses will reflect the same
mistakes. This is particularly true in situations like those at issue here, where the
Project as originally envisioned is entirely different from the one presently before the
City Council. Once a new EIR is prepared, then additional substantive issues may be
raised and addressed. PSNA reserves its rights to submit further public comment at
and up to the close of the record on the Project and requests formal, written notice in
advance of any future meetings or notices of determination related to the Project. For
the foregoing reasons, among others, PSNA respectfully requests that the City Council
deny the proposed Project, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation
below.
3917.101 / 8509864.1
Q
10
11 A-94
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2019
Page 10
Very truly yours,
Charles S. Krolikowski
Cc:
Mayor Miguel Pulido, mpulido(cDsanta-ana.orq
Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, jvillegas(a�santa-ana.orq
Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza(a)santa-ana.orq
Councilmember Jose Solorio, JSolorio(a)santa-ana.org
Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmientopsanta-ana.orq
Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, ciglesias(i)santa-ana.orq
Park Santiago Neighborhood Association
CSK:sIt
3917.101 / 8509864.1
11 A-95
NEWMEYER
DILLION O�O
November 18, 2019
VIA HAND DELIVERY AT MEETING
VIA E-MAIL CITYCOUNCIL@SANTA-ANA.ORG
Santa Ana City Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street
Fifth Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949 854 7000
Charles S. Krolikowski
Charles.Krolikowski@ndlf.com
Re: Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (the "Addington")
Located at 2525 N. Main Street
Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031)
Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council:
This office represents the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association ("PSNA"), a
coalition of interested property owners located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"), within
the zone of impacts of the proposed residential development project commonly referred
to as Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project or the Addington, located at
2525 N. Main Street ("Project"). This letter addresses AC 2525 Main LLC's ("Applicant")
appeal of the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission's ("Planning Commission") recent
denial of the Proposed Project at its meeting on October 28, 2019.
PSNA is concerned regarding the Applicant's continued pursuit of approvals that do not
conform to the policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and its efforts to do so
by way of bribing adjacent property owners. In addition, the City's continued willingness
to consider a high density multi -family residential development in an area where it would
not mesh raises concerns as to why the City has not asked the Applicant to consider
other viable development options for the site that would not have a detrimental effect on
the community and that would conform with the policies and objectives of the General
Plan.
PSNA respectfully requests that the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
("City Council") affirm the Planning Commission's denial, in accordance with
recommendation one in the Staff Report. PSNA submits that the Planning Commission
correctly rejected the modified Project. Indeed, despite multiple revisions, the Project
remains grossly inconsistent with the City of Santa Ana's General Plan and the
character of the surrounding community. At the same time, the Project documents
4398.101 / 8504501.2
Las Vegas I Newport Beach I Walnut Creek 11 A-96
newmeverdillion.com
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 2
reveal that its impacts, environmental or otherwise, still have not been properly
considered by the elected body or its constituents.
For these reasons, among others detailed more fully below, the Planning Commission's
denial must be upheld.
In addition to its written objection to any Project approval, this written comment also
serves as PSNA's formal request for written notice in advance of any future meetings
regarding the City's consideration of the Project, including, without limitation, the filing of
any notice of determination related to the purportedly Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) ("FEIR").
1. THE PROJECT'S HISTORY, MULTIPLE MODIFICATIONS, AND THREE
DENIALS.
Jeremy Ogulnick, representing AC 2525 Main, LLC, is proposing to construct a 256-unit
multi —family residential development (58 dwelling units per acre) on a 4.4-acre parcel of
land at 2525 North Main Street. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to create a
second parcel to accommodate a 180-space surface level parking lot that is proposed to
be used by the Discovery Cube on an adjacent 1.4-acre parcel. Actions required to
approve the Project include the certification and adoption of the FEIR for the
development, which includes a Clarifications to the FEIR document, a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program, and a statement of overriding considerations.
Entitlements needed for the development include the approval of a development
agreement between the City and applicant/owner, a general plan amendment to
redesignate the land use designation of the property from Professional and
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).
The Project's history, compared to its most current iteration, is quite different from when
the Planning Commission first held a public hearing to consider the Applicant's then -
proposed 496-unit (84 per acre) development project on January 14, 2019. (See City
Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3 [discussing Project background and various
modifications].) City staff recommended and presented a reduction in development
from 496 units (84 Dwelling units per acre [DUA]) to 476 units, 81 DUA. The Project
was denied by the Planning Commission. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-
3.) The City Council directed the Applicant go back to the Planning Department and
Planning Commission after consultation with the community. (City Staff Rept., Oct. 28,
2019, 2-2)
This cycle continued until the Applicant again informed City staff that it would make
further modifications before again seeking to proceed before City Council. (See City
Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1 thru 2-3.) The July 22, 2019, Planning Commission
meeting was adjourned at the last minute due to no quorum. On August 12, 2019 the
4398.101 18504501.2
12
11 A-97
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 3
Applicant's Project of 347 units resulted in an impasse by the Planning Commission.
The Applicant chose to appeal the Project to the City Council. Following this meeting
and due to extensive modifications to the Project, the City required that a modified
project be presented to the Planning Commission once again.
The latest modifications have culminated in the present, unrecognizable, and rashly
considered Project —a far cry from the initial Project as considered and evaluated in the
FEIR. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-3 thru 2-4 [modified Project in its current
iteration].) The staff report identifies the modified Project will have a lot line adjustment
and be built on 4.4 acres, with the remaining 1.4 acres to be used by a third party for
surface parking. There is no mention of selling this 1.4 acres to a third party in the staff
report. The 4.4 acre property would still require the complete demolition of an existing
two-story, 81,172 square foot office building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4,
Tbl. 1 [project location information]; see also, id. at 2-5 [discussing demolition of existing
office building].) The intensity of the proposed use and requisite Project construction
(demolition of an existing building) stands in harsh contrast to the surrounding, far less
intensive land uses, including the designated open space "Santiago Park" to the north
and the single family residential homes — R1 to the east and south. (See City Staff
Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [Project location information and adjacent uses].)
On or about October 28, 2019, the modified Project came before the Planning
Commission for the third time. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1 [listing date of
hearing].) The Planning Commission denied, again for a third time, approval of the
Project. (See Official Video of Planning Commission Regular Meeting.)'
In its present iteration before the City Council, the Project purports to construct a 256-
unit multifamily housing project at 58 dwelling units per acre, with 511 parking spaces
proposed, and an additional 180 surface parking spaces on the second adjacent lot.
(See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.) However, the
conditions of approval acknowledge that no joint parking agreement is in place and that
there would not be one until the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. (See City
Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-603.) Even upon issuance, it appears that any joint
parking agreement would be revocable at any time and by either party. (ibid.) Again,
entitlements requested include the following:
Adoption of an ordinance approving a development agreement between the
Applicant and the City, identified as Development Agreement No. 2018-01;
' The meeting minutes are not yet available, accordingly, the video is available at
https://santaana. aanicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=2&clip id=2527 (last accessed Nov. 11, 2019, on file).
4398.101 / 8504501.2
12
11 A-98
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 4
Adoption of a resolution approving a general plan amendment to re -designate the
property from Professional & Administrative Office ("PAO") to District Center
("DC"), identified as General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06;
Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment application to rezone the
property from Professional ("P") to Specific Development No. 93 ("SD-93"),
despite language in Division 26 that requires any specific development to
maintain the values of the surrounding properties; and,
Adoption of a resolution certifying the FEIR, including adoption of environmental
findings of fact under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
adoption of a purported "Clarification to the Final EIR" (City Staff Rept. at p. 2-2),
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Project will cause a substantial and significant deprivation of the property rights of
adjacent residents. For example, in public comment provided to the City Council on or
about September 3, 2019, a report detailed the potential home price devaluation in the
Park Santiago neighborhood that would result from the development of the proposed
Project. (See City Council, Sept. 3, 2019, [public comment re Park Santiago price
devaluation resulting from Project].) The Project Applicant took a unique approach in
response to this apparent situation. Specifically, it appears that the Applicant solicited
adjacent property owners' support by offering a substantial monetary sum (of at least
$35,000) in exchange for an agreement not to object to the Project.
2. ANY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE MODIFIED PROJECT WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
As the City Council is aware, a city's general plan provides the constitution for all future
development in the City. As a practical matter no city can function without it." (See
Nelson v. Carlson (1993) 17 Cal.AppAth 732, 740, as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug.
27, 1993).) Indeed, the Legislature has developed a comprehensive scheme covering a
general plan's development, adoption, and amendment. (See Gov. Code, § 65100 et
seq.) Every city is required to prepare and adopt one. (Gov. Code, §§ 65300, 65350.)
A general plan must include a detailed discussion covering a city's land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, noise and safety, along with "a statement of development
policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives,
principles, standards, and plan proposals." (Gov. Code, § 65302.) Once adopted, a
city's zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan's objectives, policies,
land uses and programs. (Gov. Code, § 65860, subd. (a)(ii); see also Lesher
Comms., Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 535-536.)
As such, the alteration or amendment of a general plan should not be taken lightly. The
impact on the City's residents is significant and a perceived benefit such as revenue is
4398.101 18504501.2
12
13
14
11 A-99
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 5
insufficient to justify the negative impacts of increased traffic, increased density,
incompatibility with neighboring communities, and environmental factors that would be
caused by allowing the Applicant's proposed amendment to the City's General Plan.
Moreover, the Applicant's efforts to purchase the silence of those opposed to its
application should mandate denial as a matter of principal and equity.
As noted above, the Planning Commission denied approval of the Project three times,
the latest on October 28, 2019. (See Official Video of Planning Comm'n Regular
Meeting.)2 In its present iteration before the City Council, the Project purports to
construct a 256-unit multifamily housing project at 58 dwelling units per acre, with 511
parking spaces proposed and an additional 180 surface parking spaces on the second
adjacent lot. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.) Also
discussed above, the Project site is approximately 4.51 acres and construction thereon
will require the complete demolition of an existing two-story, 81,172 square foot office
building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1.) Again, the intensity of the
proposed use stands in stark contrast to its surrounding surrounded uses, including an
open space park to the north and single family residential homes to the east and south.
(See ibid.)
The Project site has a current land use designation of Professional and Administrative
Office, with a zoning of Professional. The allowable uses of the property are limited to
professional and administrative offices, banking or finance, travel agencies, medical and
dental offices, museums or science centers, pharmacies, child care facilities, and
freestanding regular -hours eateries. (See SAMC, §41-313.) Other allowable uses of
the property, subject to a conditional use permit, include hospitals, convalescent
facilities, health clubs, trade schools, ambulance response services, late -night eateries,
adult day care facilities, banquet halls, clubs or lodges, and bail bonds. (SAMC, §41-
313.5.) The maximum allowable density for the adjacent R-1 district wherein the Park
Santiago neighborhood is located is low density residential (LR-7) or seven (7) dwelling
units per acre, with an actual density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre. (Ibid.)
14
The City's current General Plan does not support the approval of the Project, even in its
current form. Excerpts of the relevant land use and housing elements that remain 15
inconsistent with the proposed Project approvals are referenced below:
'- The meeting minutes are not yet available, accordingly, the video is available at
https://santaana. aanicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=2&clip id=2527 (last accessed Nov. 11, 2019, on file).
4398.101 / 8504501.2
11A-100
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 6
INCONSISTENCIES WITH LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element is divided into five sections: Purpose & Scope, Community
Factors, Policy Plan, Implementation Plan, and Appendix. Excerpts of the Land Use
Element relevant to this objection are cited below:
Community Factors
"A key role in shaping [the] future growth and redevelopment, the Land Use
Element perpetuates positive land uses and promotes development which
supports a high quality of life throughout the community." (Land Use
Element, at p. 5, emphasis added.)
"Many of the City's land use characteristics are directly related to its
historic position as one of Orange County's earliest pioneer settlements." (Ibid,
emphasis added.)
The City is the fifth largest city in Orange County, of which 58% of its 27.3 square miles
is devoted to residential development. (Id., at p. 6.)
Policy Plan
Land Use Goal 3: "Preserve and improve the character and integrity of
neighborhoods." (Land Use Element, at p. 9.)
Land Use Goal 6: "Reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health
and safety." (Ibid.)
Land Use Policies
Policy 1.2: "Support high density residential development within the City's
District Centers as a part of mixed use development." (Id., at p. 10.)
Policy 2.2: "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and
characterwith existing development in the area." (Id., at p. 11.)
Policy 3.1: "Support development which provides a positive contribution to
neighborhood character and identity." (Id., at p. 12.)
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." (Ibid, emphasis
added.)
4398.101 18504501.2
15
11A-101
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 7
Policy 5.2: "Protect the community from incompatible land uses." (Id., at p. 13.)
Policy 5.4: "Support land uses which are consistent with the Land Use Plan of
the Land Use Element." (Ibid.)
Policy 5.5: "Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of
surrounding land uses." (Ibid.)
INCONSISTENCIES WITH HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element introduces the City's housing needs and contains an analysis of
resources to address those needs. (Housing Element, at p. 2.) Excerpts of the Housing
Element relevant to this objection are cited below:
COMMUTE PATTERNS
"[T]he majority of employed Santa Ana residents work outside of the City,
approximately 20 percent work within the City." (Housing Element, at p. 13.)
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
"Approximately 70 percent of all residential areas within the City are single-family
residential neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods are established and
well maintained, and several neighborhoods contain state and local historic
resources." (Id., at p. 15.)
"To protect and stabilize residential neighborhoods, support the City's
economic base, and provide housing for the local workforce, Santa Ana is
developing new residential neighborhoods in District Centers close to
employment centers. These District Centers include the Metro East Mixed Use
Overlay Zone, MacArthur Place, Downtown Santa Ana, City Place, and similar
locations. [... ] These residential neighborhoods are intensely urbanized,
transit oriented, and explicitly designed to support a full array of housing
needs in Santa Ana." (Ibid., emphasis added.)
AVAILABLE LAND FOR HOUSING
"The City has identified areas for future development and mixed uses within its
District Centers and transit corridors. [... ] The sites are specifically chosen to
create distinct and vibrant activity centers linked together with a variety of
transportation options." (Id., at p. 30.)
4398.101 18504501.2
15
11A-102
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 8
POLICY FRAMEWORK
Policy HE-1.7: "Historic Preservation. Support preservation and enhancement I 15
of residential structures, properties, street designs, lot patterns, and other visible
reminders of neighborhoods that are considered local historical or cultural
resources. (Housing Element, at p. 43.)
Similar inconsistencies should also cause the City concern. For example, the Project
contemplates public access to the City's Santiago Park via the proposed development.
This private -to -public access creates obvious problems with respect to maintenance
costs and liability, but the Project as contemplated does not appear to address those
issues. Moreover, the Project documents frequently reference the Project as a District
Center, although its current iteration does not contemplate a mixed -use component, a
requirement of any District Center development.
For the foregoing reasons, among others, any approval of the Project would be
inconsistent with and continue to violate the City's General Plan.
3. THE PROJECT APPROVAL MAY SUBJECT THE CITY TO SUBSTANTIAL
LITIGATION.
In addition to the problems with respect inconsistency with the General Plan as
identified above, the City's actions described herein may give rise to a compensable
regulatory taking. Specifically, the City's approval of the Project will intentionally
interfere with the property rights of the surrounding property owners, depressing the
value of the properties wherein some or all economic uses of the will be impacted under
the Penn Central and/or Kavanau tests. (See, e.g., Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New
York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 123; Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997)
16 CalAth 761, 771-777; see also Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio
(2015) 236 Cal.AppAth 1175.)
Evidence of this depression in value has already been provided to the City Council.
(See City Council, Sept. 3, 2019, [public comment re Park Santiago price devaluation
resulting from Project].) In fact, on September 3, 2019, public comment provided in the
formal record for the Project detailed the potential home price devaluation that would
result. (ibid.) Here, the Park Santiago neighborhood consists of approximately 1100
homes at an average value of $700,000 each. If the value of these homes is
depressed by even as little as 5%, or approximately $35,000, that would result in
potential losses of up to $38.5 million. (See ibid.) As such, the City may have
significant exposure for inverse condemnation for injury to property interests caused by
the City's failure to properly and thoroughly consider the impacts of this Project on
surrounding properties, although such impacts are required to be considered under
Division 26 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC"). (See Knick v. Township of
4398.101 18504501.2
16
17
11A-103
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 9
Scott, Pennsylvania (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162; Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal
Comm'n (1998) 17 CalAth 1006, 1029.)
Further, it appears that the Applicant acknowledged these potential losses and has
solicited surrounding property owners' support by offering at least $35,000 to certain
homeowners in exchange for their support of the Project. The City Council cannot and
should not condone this conduct, as it results in a further violation of Chapter 41, which
requires that the value of surrounding properties be maintained prior to the approval of
any specific development. (SAMC, § 41-593.1.)
Failure to properly consider the impacts outlined above, among others, may subject the
City to inverse condemnation liability as a result.
4. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT MAY
IMPERMISSIBLY CONTRACT AWAY THE CITY'S DISCRETION.
Land use regulations involve the exercise of the police power and the right to exercise
the police power cannot be contracted away. (See Richeson v. Helal (2007) 158
Cal.AppAth 268, 280-281, as modified (Dec. 21, 2007); Avco Community Developers,
Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 800; City of Glendale v.
Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.AppAth 1768, 1778-1779; Delucchi v. County of Santa
Cruz (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 823; Carty v. City of Ojai (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 329,
342-343.) If a contract cannot be read harmoniously with the police power, the contract
would be unconstitutional as "contracting away" the City's sovereign police power.
(Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz, supra, at pp. 823-824.)
Although a development agreement itself operates as a legislative act and not
necessarily a contract, it is subject to the principles expressed above. In Save Tara v.
City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 CalAth 116, 130-132, the Court struck down a similar
project by finding that the city violated CEQA because it had impermissibly committed
itself to the project before completing an adequate CEQA review. When a public
agency gives a project "approval" it "commits to a definite course of action in regard to a
project." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 1532, subd. (a).)
Because the proposed development agreement can be read to unconditionally commit
to an approval without first attaining CEQA compliance and without proper preservation
of the City's police powers, any related Project approval may be held invalid.
5. IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE PROJECT AS IS, IT WILL BE
SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE BY REFERENDUM.
17
Ifs
If the City Council approves the Project in its current state, the support of ten percent or
more of the registered voters will be easily attainable for a referendum of the legislative 19
entitlements. The City's own staff report supports this, as it repeatedly references the
4398.101 18504501.2
11A-104
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 10
number of opponents as early as the initial notice of proceeding, which received 163
comment letters. For example, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission
conducted a work-study session to overview the Project. As part of this session, the
Planning Commission received numerous comments, largely opposed, including thirty-
two (32) verbal comments, with three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition;
and nine (9) written comments, with one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition.
The opponents to the Project have only increased over time. At the latest Planning
Commission meeting on October 28, 2019, sixty-two (62) speakers expressed
opposition and only two (2) expressed support of the project. In addition, ninety-eight
(98) individuals submitted written comments, with ninety-four (94) in opposition and only
four (4) in support.
Upon submittal of any such referendum, the City will have a mandatory duty to process
and submit any such initiative and referendum measures. (Duran v. Cassidy (1972) 28
Cal.App.3d 574 [city clerk]; Elec. Code, § 4008; Farley v. Healey (1967) 67 Cal.2d 325
[charter of the City and County of San Francisco]; Elec. Code, § 180; see also Yost V.
Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 564, fn. 2.). The cost to the City and its taxpayers to
process such a referendum could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
6. THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF A
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE.
The requirement for meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard extend to
rezonings and other legislative acts. This is particularly true where property rights are
affected. As noted above, the value of the impact to the neighboring homes may be
substantial. Thus, adjacent properties are entitled to due process notice.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires "at a minimum ... that
deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and
opportunity for hearing..." (Mullane v. Central Hanover Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.)
The 'root requirement' of due process is "that an individual be given an opportunity for a
hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." (Scott v. City of
Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 548-549; Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371,
379.) Notice and an opportunity to be heard are prerequisites. (Anderson Nat. Bank v.
Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 240-247; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605,
612-615; Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11
Cal.3d 506, 517; Kennedy v. City of Hayward (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 953.)
State and local law therefore require valid notice of the hearing be given to nearby
property owners. (Gov. Code, §§ 65901, 65905; FCZO, § 877(13)(5)(c).) For notice to
be valid, "notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected
persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. [Citations.]" (Horn v. County of
4398.101 / 8504501.2
19
20
11A-105
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 11
Ventura, supra., 24 Cal.3d at p. 617.) Several cases have held that to be adequate "the
notice must be such as would according to common experience be reasonably
adequate to the purpose." (See, e.g., Kennedy v. South Coast Regional Com., supra,
68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 670-672; Litchfield v. County of Marin (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 806,
813; Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 548-549; Drum v. Fresno County
Dept. of Public Works (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 777, 782-783.)
Consistently, the SAMC likewise acknowledges the requirement for valid notice to
adjacent property owners. Section 41-645 governs the City Council's review of the
Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Project. (See Code 1952, § 9250.14;
Ord. No. NS-455, § 1, 6-20-60; Ord. No. NS-521, § 18, 6-19-61; Ord. No. NS-989, § 1,
11-17-69; Ord. No. NS-2847, § 43, 8-5-13; Ord. No. NS-2923, § 9, 9-16-17 adding § 41-
645 to SAMC).) Section 41-465, subdivision (g) limits the scope of the City Council's
determinations on appeal as "within the limitations imposed by this chapter" with specific
reference to Chapter 41, Zoning:
The council, or in the case of a zoning administrator appeal,
the planning commission, may, after public hearing, affirm,
reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make
any additional determination it shall consider appropriate
within the limitations imposed by this chapter. Such decision
shall be filed with the clerk of the council, and the
city planning department; one (1) copy thereof shall be sent
to the applicant.
(SAMC, § 41-645, subd. (g).) Along those lines, all provisions of Chapter 41 must be
interpreted and applied as, not the ceiling, but the basic "minimum requirements for the
promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, and general welfare."
(Code 1952, § 9281; Ord. No. NS-455, § 1, 6-20-60 adding § 41-766 to SAMC.)
As part of those express "limitations imposed by" Chapter 41, the City Council's ability
to approve plans for a development project like the Project here are contingent on its
providing of adequate notice. (See SAMC, § 41-672, subd. (a).) Specifically,
"whenever approval of plans for a development project will constitute a substantial or
significant deprivation of property rights of other landowners[,]" as it will here. (See
ibid.) Such an approval is invalid unless the director of planning and development
services has set the matter for public hearing and provided valid notice at least five (5)
days prior to the date of the hearing. (See ibid.) Valid notice must include "notice of the
time and place of the hearing to all persons, including businesses, corporations, or other
public or private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll, as owning real
property within three hundred (300) feet of the property which is the subject of the
application." (See ibid.) Moreover, the notice "shall be given by direct mailing to the
owners at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing." (See ibid.)
4398.101 18504501.2
0
11A-106
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 12
Finally, notice regarding the City Council's potential action on a matter that required the
recommendation from the Planning Commission cannot be given until after the
Planning Commission has issued its recommendation. Failure to do so results in
inadequate notice under established law. Here, only the staff report contained the
recommendation from the Planning Commission —not the earlier, defective notice. As
the courts have explained, notice without those recommendations is patently
insufficient:
As we will explain, section 65856 is silent on the timing of
the notice and therefore creates an ambiguity as to when, in
relation the planning commission's recommendation, the
notice may be given. As we will further explain, a
construction of section 65856's notice provision is
inextricably bound with what must be included in that notice,
a question that must be answered by looking to section
65094, which states that the contents of that notice must
include a "general explanation of the matter to be
considered." Consistent with the purpose behind the
Planning and Zoning Law, we will interpret the phrase
"general explanation of the matter to be considered" to
include the planning commission's recommendation.
Therefore, notice of a legislative body's hearing cannot be
given until the planning commission has made a
recommendation on the matter under consideration.
(Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158
Cal.AppAth 877, 888, as modified (Jan. 9, 2008).)
Because inaccurate notice is akin to no notice at all, the Project cannot go forward on
the defective notice issued without the requisite recommendations from the Planning
Commission. (Drum v. Fresno County Dept. of Public Works, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at
p. 783.)
7. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN NOTICE.
20
For the foregoing reasons, among others, PSNA respectfully requests that the City
Council deny the proposed Project, consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation. Additionally, PSNA reserves its rights to submit further public 21
comment at and up to the close of the record on the Project and requests formal, written
notice in advance of any future meetings or notices of determination related to the
Project.
4398.101 / 8504501.2
11A-107
Honorable Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
November 18, 2019
Page 13
I 21
Based on the foregoing, PNSA respectfully requests that the City actin accordance with
the Planning Commission's recommendation and, for the third time, reject this faulty,
rushed Project.
Very truly yours,
Charles S. Krolikowski
Cc:
Mayor Miguel Pulido, mpulido(a)santa-ana.org
Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, Ivillegas(c)santa-ana.org
Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza(a)santa-ana.org
Councilmember Jose Solorio, JSolorio(cilsanta-ana.org
Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(a)santa-ana.org
Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, ciglesias(a)santa-ana.org
City Public Comments, eComment(cDsanta-ana.org
Park Santiago Neighborhood Association
CSK:sIt
4398.101 / 8504501.2
11A-108
Newmeyer Dillion City Council Comment Letter Response to CEQA Comments
The attached letters were received on November 18, 2019 and November 19, 2019 prior to the City Council hearing
for the 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project. The following provides responses to the comments in
the letters, as numbered in the attached and referenced below.
Comment 1: The comment asserts that the City Council should reject the proposed entitlements and uphold the
Planning Commission's decision, as they are inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan and are not supported
by a legally adequate FEIR. The comment also asserts that the FEIR is not legally adequate because it incorporates
significant new information without meaningful public review and comment. The comment states that the EIR is
required to respond to changes to the project, changes in circumstance, or new information. The comment also
requests formal notification of future meetings about the project.
Response 1: Despite the commenters allegations, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The
Commenter does not point to any evidence that the project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. In fact,
Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR provides a complete assessment of the project's compliance
with the General Plan policies that are relevant to the proposed project. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the project
would not conflict with any policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. As described on page 4.7-16 of the Draft EIR, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, indicate a
significant environmental effect within the meaning of CEQA. A project's inconsistency with a policy is only
considered significant if such inconsistency would cause significant physical environmental impacts (as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).
As described on page 1 of the October Clarification to the FEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a Lead
Agency recirculate an EIR when "significant new information" is added to the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5(a) specifies that the term "information" includes changes in the proposed project or environmental setting, as
well as additional data or other information. But, for "information" to be "significant' such that it would trigger
recirculation, the information would have to be of the type that would result in the EIR being changed in a way that
deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a
feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Thus, "significant new information" includes information that shows
that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure
proposed to be implemented, or
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are
adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance, or
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed
would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, or
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public
review and comment were precluded.
The October Clarification to the FOR provides a detailed analysis of the modified project, a comparison to the
project evaluated in the Draft EIR, and based on that information concludes that no increase of any environmental
effect would occur from the modified project. Thus, recirculation of the EIR was not required. The modification
reduced the number of residential units by 48.4 percent, reduced the scale of the structures, and revised the
vehicular parking and access to the site. The October Clarification to the FOR was available on the City's website
and at City Hall on October 17, 2019. In addition, the Park Santiago Neighborhood will continue to be notified of any
meetings regarding the project. Members of the public had ample time to review the October Clarification document
1
11A-109
and to comment on its contents. Indeed, many commenters submitted comments on the document at or before both
the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. For these reasons, recirculation of the Draft EIR was not
required.
The City has made note of the commenters request to receive notices of this project.
Comment 2: The comment provides a summary of the Planning Commission meeting, project entitlements, and
modifications to the project. The comment asserts that the project is a contrast the adjacent park and single-family
residential homes. The comment asserts that the project would result in a potential home price devaluation and
therefore, a deprivation of the property rights of adjacent landowners.
Response 2: According to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131(a), economic or social effects of a project shall
not be treated as significant effects on the environment. To that end, the alleged home price devaluation mentioned
in the comment is not a CEQA issue. The comment does not trace this alleged economic devaluation to any potential
physical change in the environment, and there is no such evidence in the record that such physical effects would
occur. Therefore, the economic impacts of this project need not be addressed in the EIR.
As described in Response 1, the October Clarification to the FOR acknowledges the modification of the project,
which generally consists of a reduction in the number of residential units and a surface parking lot on the site. The
October Clarification to the FEIR provides an evaluation that determined no new or additional impacts would result
from the modifications. Also, Section 4.9, Population and Housing, describes that according to Section 15382 of the
CEQA Guidelines, "[a]n economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant impact on the
environment" Socioeconomic characteristics should be considered in an EIR only to the extent that they create
adverse impacts on the physical environment. The EIR determined that potential impacts to the single-family
residential properties adjacent to the east of the site (such as construction noise) would be mitigated to a less than
significant level. Any increase or decrease in the valuation of the adjacent residential properties would not result in a
significant impact on the environment, as residences (including single-family) are in demand within the region (as
detailed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing), would remain occupied, and would not result in an adverse impact
on the physical environment.
Comment 3: The comment provides a case law discussion about the requirements of an EIR project description. The
comment asserts that the project violates the General Plan. The comment states that the project is capable of a
much higher maximum density than is being considered in the environmental review and that the project description
may be inaccurate because it does not identify the maximum allowable density based on the proposed entitlements.
Response 3: The project description is definite, finite and consistent. The project evaluated in the Draft EIR was
consistently referred to throughout the Draft EIR and technical appendices. The two Clarification documents describe
in detail the project changes that were evaluated as part of the CEQA process. The project description in each
Clarification document was consistent throughout. Reducing the project intensity and density is the very type of
development design response that is contemplated by CEQA. It is the quintessential example of the environmental
considerations of the project shaping the end result. If a project could not be reduced or changed as a result of
environmental review and public input, the most fundamental purpose of the public review process would be
eviscerated. The City's response to public comment on the project — the reductions in the project — do not mean that
the project description is unstable or shifting.
As described in Response 1, the EIR provides a full discussion regarding compliance with General Plan policies and
the potential of the project to conflict with a policy and result in a significant environmental impact, which determined
that impacts would be less than significant.
11A-110
The October Clarification to the FOR provides a detailed description of the modified project. As described, the site
was previously proposed for development of 496 multi -family residential units, and therefore, the site is capable of
accommodating more multi -family units than currently proposed (256 units, 58 dwelling units per acre). However, the
modified project would require City approval of the same General Plan Amendment and Amendment Application
(zoning amendment) that are required by the Original Project. These amendments would change the land use
designation of the site from Professional & Administration Office (PAO) to District Center (DC) and an Amendment
Application (zone change) from Professional (P) to Specific Development (SD) to provide site specific development
standards. The SD would specify the allowable number of units permitted pursuant to the City Council approval. In
addition, the project entitlements include a Development Agreement, which specifies the project details, including:
number of dwelling units, open space area, parking, and other requirements of the project. Therefore, based on the
proposed SD regulations and Development Agreement requirements, the project would be limited to a maximum of
256 units (58 dwelling units per acre), pursuant to the City Council's approval.
Comment 4: The comment summarizes the law on baseline in an EIR and explains that the baseline is a
fundamental component as it provides a starting point from which all future comparisons are made. The comment
states that the baseline must reflect the existing condition, applicable plan designations, and zoning for the site. The
comment asserts that the FEIR's impact analysis and conclusions are based on the approval of the proposed
entitlements.
Response 4: The EIR provides a complete description of the existing environmental setting, including the existing
general plan and zoning designations. Draft EIR Sections 3.1 through 3.4 provide descriptions of the regional setting,
project location, project site, and adjacent areas. In addition, each environmental topic area includes a specific
discussion of the environmental setting. For example, the noise analysis provides noise measurements of existing
ambient noise, the traffic analysis provides existing traffic on roadways and at intersections in the study area, the
aesthetics section provides text descriptions and pictures of the existing setting. Such detail is provided within each
topic of the EIR. The analysis of each section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on the existing
environment, pursuant to the direction and thresholds of CEQA. This includes comparison of the existing noise,
traffic, aesthetic and other environments to those that would exist with construction and operation of the project.
Similarly, the EIR provides a description of the existing land use and zoning designations and the potential impacts to
land use and planning that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA it is
appropriate to assume the approval of the project, including entitlements, to identify the potential impacts that would
occur with project implementation.
Comment 5: The comment states that the project fails to consider its impacts relative to the applicable general,
regional, and specific plans. The comment states that the EIR must discuss and evaluate inconsistencies with the
project and the applicable plans. The comment also states that the existing land use designations allow for a much
lower maximum density for the project site that is consistent with the general and regional plans, but inconsistent with
the high -density development proposed by the project. The comment asserts that the FOR evaluates the project
against a false or shifting baseline that is inconsistent with existing baseline conditions, and thus, the FOR is likely
legally insufficient.
Response 5: As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis, the baseline used in the Draft
EIR was the existing conditions at the time that the Notice of Preparation was released. Section 4.7, Land Use and
Planning, of the Draft EIR provides a complete description of the existing land use and planning conditions, graphics
that show the existing land use and zoning of the project site and surrounding areas, and a discussion of the
applicable regional and local land use plans. The EIR includes a detailed consistency analysis with the project
relevant policies of the Southem California Associations of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and
Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the City of Santa Ana General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. As
described in Response 1, the EIR includes an assessment of the project's compliance with the General Plan policies
that are relevant to the proposed project and, pursuant to CEQA thresholds, determined that the project would not
conflict with any policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
11A-111
The comment's assumption that the existing land use designation allows for lower density development on the
project site is inaccurate. Draft EIR Section 6.0, Afternatives, describes build out of the site pursuant to the existing
General Plan and zoning designations. As described, Build Out of the Existing Zoning Alternative, would result in
building setbacks of 15-feet from the front and side property lines and 50-feet setback when the site backs to
residential areas. The maximum office building structure that could be developed under the existing zoning code
requirements would be 3-stories high and 387,465 square feet (floor area ratio of 1.5), which would require 1,161
parking spaces.
In comparison, the 256 residential units would be provided within approximately 277,281 square feet of residential
structures, which is 110,184 square feet less of occupiable building space allowed under the existing zoning. These
units would be setback a minimum of 90-feet from the eastern property line, which is 40 more feet of setback than
under the existing zoning requirements.
The Build Out Under the Existing Zoning Alternative would result in approximately 1,275 employees at full capacity
(Draft EIR page 6-23), whereas, the 256 multi -family residential units would result in 502 residents at full occupancy,
which is 773 fewer persons onsite. Also, development under the existing General Plan and zoning designations
would result in 3,774 daily vehicular trips, 449 in the a.m. peak hour and 446 in the p.m. peak hour, as detailed in
Table 6-3 of the Draft EIR. In comparison, the project's 256 multi -family residential units would generate 1,393 daily
vehicular trips, 92 in the a.m. peak hour and 113 in the p.m. peak hour (based on the ITE trip generation rate).
Hence, the project would result in 2,381 fewer daily vehicular trips, 357 fewer a.m. peak hour, and 333 fewer p.m.
peak hour trips than build out of the project site under the existing General Plan and zoning. Therefore, the existing
land use and zoning designations of the project site do not allow for lower density development, but a higher density
development with more occupiable square footage, persons on site, and vehicular trips than the 256 multi -family unit
project.
Refer to Response 4 regarding the baseline conditions included in the EIR.
Comment 6: The comment states that CEQA compliance must occur before the City approves a project. The
comment also provides case law information regarding lead agency independent review requirements. The comment
states that if an EIR bases its cumulative impact analysis on general plan projections it must explain why the
projections are a realistic indicator of impacts, and that general plan projections are an inadequate basis for the
cumulative impact analysis if the plan's projections exclude relevant data. The comment further states that this is
particularly true in situations like the project, which was originally envisioned at higher density, the analyses that flow
from the estimates may be flawed.
Response 6: The Draft EIR and both Clarification documents were prepared by RE Consulting, under contract to the
City. RE Consulting is the Citys consultant's, not the applicant's. By engaging RE Consulting to prepare the EIR, the
City has exercised its independent judgment in preparation of the environmental analysis. CEQA allows a lead
agency to hire experts to help it prepare these technical documents. (Pub. Resources Code, section 21082.1.)
The EIR does not base its cumulative impact analysis on general plan data or projections. The City of Santa Ana's
existing General Plan is dated and the City is in the process of preparing a comprehensive update to its General
Plan. As detailed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, demographic data is from the California Department of
Finance, SCAG 2017 Local Profile for the City of Santa Ana, and U.S. Census data, and projections are from the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In addition to this demographic data, the cumulative
analysis was based on a list of past, present and probable future cumualtive projects for which applications were
submitted to lead agencies prior to publishing of the Notice of Preparation, as detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental
Setting and Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR.
11A-112
Also, the project is within the land use build out assumptions of the General Plan. As described in Response 5,
development of the project site pursuant to the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations would result
in greater square footage, persons onsite, and vehicular trips than the 256 multi -family unit project. Thus, the project
is within (and would not exceed) the General Plan Land Use Element build out conditions.
Comment 7: The comment states that the FOR may fail to identify, discuss or mitigate potential impacts related to
transportation. The comment asserts that southbound traffic on N. Main Street between Edgewood Road and Walkie
Way have the potential to increase and block intersections because the project would reduce the distance between
the intersections, while adding traffic. The comment states that the traffic technical study calculated the back up, but
it was not evaluated or mitigated.
Response 7: Page 4.11-10 of the Draft EIR describes that the City's thresholds of significance are based on the
Level of Service (LOS) at intersections and roadway segments. There are no thresholds for queuing impacts under
CEQA per the City's General Plan, traffic analysis guidelines, or the Orange County CMP. As detailed in the October
Clarification to the FEIR, all of the Main Street intersections and roadway segments are forecast to operate at
satisfactory levels of service with project traffic. Specifically, Tables T-2 and T-3 show that the intersection and
roadway LOS would not change with implementation of the project and that impacts would be less than significant
pursuant to the City's thresholds of significance.
Additionally, all of the Main Street intersections near the project site are signalized or right-in/right-out. The traffic
signal metering will prevent blocking of intersections. It should be noted that queue spillovers occur on most
congested intersections, and traffic signals are timed to minimize queue spillovers. Furthermore, the project will
extend the southbound left turn pocket to Edgewood Road, which will allow for left turning traffic to enter the left turn
lane instead of waiting in the southbound through lane, which would result in lessening the through queues on Main
Street at Edgewood Road.
Comment 8: The comment states that once the FOR is revised to include an accurate project description, the
additional substantive issues may be raised and addressed. The comment further states that supplemental
information and evidence may be submitted up to the final public hearing.
Response 8: As described in Response 3, the October Clarification to the FEIR provides a detailed description of the
256 multi -family unit project and does not need revision. The City of Santa Ana provided many opportunities for
public comment on the project and EIR throughout the development approval process.
Comment 9: The comment describes the requirements for recirculation of an EIR and explains that new information
in an EIR is significant if it involves a substantial adverse effect. The comment also states that the FOR incorporates
substantial and significant new information because it includes an Arborist Report with measures to mitigate potential
impacts to trees. The comment states that the Arborist Report identifies eight unhealthy trees that are recommended
for removal and asserts that the removal requires review of the City's Environmental and Transportation Advisory
Committee. The comment also asserts that the western mastiff bat is a special status species and could be affected
by the tree removal, and that this is not adequately addressed in the EIR. The comment asserts that the Arborist
Report is a new mitigation measure, and thus the EIR may fail to inform decision makers about impacts. The
comment further asserts that this involves changes to significant and unavoidable impacts resulting in the inability of
agencies and the public to comment, and that the EIR should be recirculated.
Response 9: The Arborist Report to which this comment refers was not significant new information. The Arborist
Report was included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR and was circulated for public review and comment as part of the
EIR. As included on page 3-18 of the Draft EIR, Project Description Feature (PDF)-1 is to incorporate the existing
mature trees along the eastern and southern project site boundaries, as identified by the Arborist Report. Page 3-8 of
the Draft EIR also describes that PDFs will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
would be monitored to ensure completion in the same manner as mitigation measures. Hence, the measures
11A-113
included within the Arborist Report are not new measures. In addition, page 4.1-6 of the Draft EIR describes that the
Arborist Report has identified eight trees in poor health along the eastern property line, and page 4.1-18 of the Draft
EIR describes that these eight trees would be removed and replaced due to poor health. These are on -site trees and
not under the review of the City's Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee, which reviews street trees
in public locations.
Regarding the Western mastiff bat, page 4.3-4 of the Draft EIR describes that the Western mastiff bat, has a low
potential to roost in the large trees and palms. The bat's typical habitat involves conifer and deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral, which do not occur on the project site, within Santiago Park, or in the
adjacent areas. Due to the developed nature of the site and limited habitat availability, potential impacts to the
western mastiff bat from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Overall, there have
been no changes regarding the Arborist Report and potential impacts to the Western mastiff bat since public review
of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, these issues do not involve significant and unavoidable impacts and do not result in
the inability of agencies and the public to comment.
Comment 10: The comment is a summary of previous comments and states that the EIR's project description,
baseline, and consistency requirements are not met as the project as originally envisioned is different than the one
before council. The comment states that one a new EIR is prepared additional substantive comments may be raised
and addressed. The comments requests notice of future project meetings and requests the City Council to deny the
project.
Response 10: Refer to previous Responses related to the project description, baseline, and consistency
requirements. As detailed previously, the modified project would not result in any significant new information and
preparation of a new EIR or recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. Noticing of future project meetings will continue
to occur.
Comment 11: The comment states that the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association (PSNA) is concerned about the
pursuit of approvals that do not conform to the policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and the City's
willingness to consider a high density mult4amily residential development in an area where it would not mesh and
other viable development options for the site that would not have a detrimental effect on the community and that
would conform with the policies and objectives of the General Plan should be considered. The comment requests
rejection of the project, states the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the character of the surrounding
community. The comment also requests formal notification of future meetings about the project.
Response 11: Refer to Response 1 regarding the project's consistency with the General Plan. The comment does
not specifically identify an environmental detrimental effect on the community. The potential environmental effects on
the community have been evaluated in the EIR document pursuant to CEQA. In addition, Section 4.7, Land Use and
Planning, of the Draft EIR describes that the project would be consistent with urban and modern development along
the N. Main Street corridor and be consistent with the General Plan designation of the area as a gateway to the city.
As described in the October 28, 2019 Planning Commission and November 19, 2019 City Council staff reports the
current land use designation for this site is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) with a maximum floor area
ratio of 1.5, which applies to areas that are predominately professional offices and/or administrative offices or areas
where such development is encouraged. The modified project requires 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 58 dwelling units
per acre or a floor area ratio of 1.43, which the City Council approved on November 19, 2019. The modified project
floor area ratio is consistent with the existing allowable floor area ratio of 1.5. Main Street at the project site is an
urban corridor.
C
11A-114
The properties immediately adjacent to the site include Santiago Park (Open Space, 0) to the north, single-family
residential homes to the south and east (Low Density Residential, LR-7) and the Discovery Cube (Professional and
Administrative Office, PAO) across Main Street to the west. The General Plan land use map designates the
surrounding areas to the northwest, northeast, south of the Santa Ana 1-5 Freeway and along Main Street north of
Seventeenth Street as District Centers. District Centers are to be developed with an urban character that includes a
mixture of high-rise offices, commercial and multi -family residential uses which provide shopping, business, cultural
and housing opportunities within close proximity to each other, close to transportation opportunities and in prime
development focus areas. Residential development within these areas is allowed at a density of up to 90 acres. The
General Plan Amendment to District Center is consistent with the surrounding District Center designations along
Main Street.
The EIR also describes that due to the difference in land use density and scale of the project and existing single-
family development, the project includes design measures, such as courtyards, setbacks, lower building heights on
the east side of the site, and architectural treatments to provide a residential character toward the existing single-
family residential areas. Although, resulting in a higher density and intensity development than the adjacent single-
family residences, the project is consistent along N. Main Street and the design includes: increasing the existing wall
height to 8-feet, retention of most of the mature trees and installation of new trees on the eastern portion of the site to
screen views, provision of a 90-foot minimum building setback, and provision of a residential character that does not
currently exist on the project site. In addition, the Park Santiago Neighborhood will continue to be notified of any
meetings regarding the project.
Comment 12: The comment provides a discussion of the entitlements and approvals required for the project, and a
summary of the project revisions and Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding the project. The
comment states that there is no joint parking agreement for the project, and that any parking agreement would be
revocable.
Response 12: The project includes a lot line adjustment to create two separate lots, one parcel for the residential
use and one parcel for shared parking with the Discovery Cube. The residential lot will be approximately 4.4 acres in
size and the shared parking lot parcel will be approximately 1.4 acres and contain 180 parking spaces.
Comment 13: The comment asserts that the project would result in a potential home price devaluation and therefore,
a deprivation of the property rights of adjacent landowners.
Response 13: Refer to Response 2 regarding CEQA Guidelines Section 15382.
Comment 14: The comment provides information related to the requirements of cities to have General Plans and
that modification of the General Plan could result in impacts, and thus, should not be taken lightly. The comment also
states that the intensity of the proposed use is in contrast to surrounded uses including an open space park to the
north and single-family residential homes to the east and south which have a maximum allowable density of 7
dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Response 14: Refer to Response 5 regarding the development that could occur from development under the
existing General Plan and zoning designations. Also, refer to Response 11 regarding the contrast of the project with
adjacent uses. Additionally, as described in the October 28, 2019 Planning Commission and November 19, 2019 City
Council staff reports the current land use designation for this site is Professional and Administrative Office (PAO) with
a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5. The project would result in a density of 58 dwelling units per acre or a floor area
ratio of 1.43. Thus, the modified project floor area ratio is consistent with the existing allowable floor area ratio of 1.5.
11A-115
Comment 15: The comment states that the City's current General Plan does not support the approval of the project.
The comment provides excerpts from the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements and states that the project
would be inconsistent with the excerpts. Each of the excerpts in the comment are listed in the response below.
Response 15: The resolution for General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06 for the project states several
goals/objectives and policies of the General Plan that the project supports or is consistent with. Additionally, in
Response 1, Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR provides a complete assessment of the project's
compliance with the General Plan policies that are relevant to the proposed project and determined that the project
would not conflict with any policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect. A project's inconsistency with a policy is only considered significant if such inconsistency would cause
significant physical environmental impacts (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). Each of the General
Plan excerpts listed in the comment are provided in the table below with a description of consistency with the
proposed project. There is no evidence that the project is inconsistent with any policy — and even if there were —
there is no evidence that such inconsistency (which there is not) would cause a significant impact to the physical
environment.
General Plan Excerpt Per Comment
Project Consistent
A key role in shaping [the] future growth and
As described in Table 4.7-2 of the Draft EIR, the project
redevelopment, the Land Use Element perpetuates
would provide residences near existing employment,
positive land uses and promotes development which
shopping, and services. The project would assist in the
supports a high quality of life throughout the
jobs to housing balance and provide additional housing
community.
within an area that has limited vacancy, thus, providing
a net community benefit. In addition, the project would
include open space and recreation amenities that would
enhance the quality of life for site residents. Also, as
described throughout this EIR, although the project
would result in high density residential next to low
density residential land uses, the project would not
result in significant environmental effects to adjacent
residents, such as light, shade, glare, noise, air quality,
or traffic.
Many of the City's land use characteristics are directly
The existing office building is a modem structure and is
related to its historic position as one of Orange
adjacent to other modem structures along N. Main
County's earliest pioneer settlements.
Street, which does not include historic resources. Also,
as described in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic
Resources, of the EIR, the proposed project would not
result in impacts to any historic resources, particularly
those within the Park Santiago neighborhood.
Land Use Goal 3: Preserve and improve the character
As described in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and
and integrity of neighborhoods.
Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, the proposed
project includes design measures, such as courtyards,
setbacks, varied building heights, and architectural
treatments that would not adversely impact the
character or integrity of the neighborhood.
Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, also describes
that the project site's current designation of PAO
provides for office/commercial uses that are not
11A-116
General Plan Excerpt Per Comment
Project Consistent
consistent with the adjacent single-family residential.
Multi -family residential uses are generally more
consistent with single-family uses than
office/commercial uses, and it is typical for single and
multi -family residential developments to be sited
adjacent to one another. The proposed project's multi-
family uses and 90-foot minimum building setback with
trees along the site boundary would provide a transition
between the low density single-family residential
development to the east and south and the higher
density commercial/office uses along N. Main Street.
Land Use Goal 6: Reduce residential overcrowding to
As described in Table 4.7-2 of the Draft EIR, the project
promote public health and safety.
would develop additional multi -family rental housing
within the City to assist in providing additional housing
options and improve the rental unit vacancy rate.
Policy 1.2: Support high density residential
As described in Table 4.7-2 of the Draft EIR and
development within the City's District Centers as a part
Response 11, the proposed project is a high -density
of mixed -use development.
residential development within an area of the City that
contains existing District Centers.
Policy 2.2: Support new development which is
As described in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and
harmonious in scale and character with existing
Section 4.7, Land Use and Planning, the project would
development in the area.
be consistent with urban development along N. Main
Street and includes design measures, such as
courtyards, setbacks, lower building heights on the east
side of the site, and architectural treatments to provide
a residential character toward the existing single-family
residential areas. Although, resulting in a higher density
and intensity development than the adjacent single-
family residences, the project is consistent along N.
Main Street and the design includes: increasing the
existing wall height to 8-feet, retention of most of the
mature trees and installation of new trees on the
eastern portion of the site to screen views, provision of
a 90-foot minimum building setback and provision of a
residential character that does not currently exist on the
project site. Overall, the project would provide a more
harmonious residential character than currently exists
between the site and the single-family area, however,
the residential character would be greater and scale
and provide a multi -family character that is different
than the single family residential areas to the east and
south.
Policy 3.1: Support development which provides a
As described previously, the project is sited along the
positive contribution to neighborhood character and
Main Street corridor and would provide modern
identity.
architecture that is consistent with the adjacent
buildings along Main Street and be consistent with the
11A-117
General Plan Excerpt Per Comment
Protect Consistent
General Plan designation of the area as a gateway to
the City. The proposed project's multifamily uses and
90-foot minimum building setback with trees along the
site boundary would provide a transition between the
low density single-family residential development to the
east and south and the higher density commercial/office
uses along N. Main Street. In comparison to the
existing vacant office building, the proposed residential
uses, open space courtyards, and landscaping would
support the residential character of the Park Santiago
area, while supporting the General Plan gateway
designation and existing urban development along Main
Street.
Policy 3.5: Encourage new development and/or
As described previously, the project is sited along the
additions to existing development that are compatible in
Main Street corridor and would provide modern
scale, and consistent with the architectural style and
architecture that is consistent with the adjacent
character of the neighborhood.
buildings along Main Street. The project also includes
design measures, such as courtyards, setbacks, lower
building heights on the east side of the site, and
architectural treatments to provide a residential
character toward the existing single-family residential
areas. Although, resulting in a higher density and
intensity development than the adjacent single-family
residences, the project is consistent along N. Main
Street and the design includes: increasing the existing
wall height to 8-feet, retention of most of the mature
trees and installation of new trees on the eastern
portion of the site to screen views, provision of a 90-foot
minimum building setback and provision of a residential
character that does not currently exist on the project
site.
Policy 5.2: Protect the community from incompatible
As described in Draft EIR Section 4.7, Land Use and
land uses.
Planning, the project would provide multi -family
residential units along the N. Main Street urban multi-
use corridor and adjacent to single-family residential
uses. Although the project would result high density
residential next to low density residential land uses, the
existing single-family residential area would no longer
be adjacent to an office use, but a more compatible
(although higher in density) residential use. In addition,
the single-family lots adjacent to the project site would
be buffered by an 8-foot high masonry wall, tall
landscaping, and a 90-foot minimum building setback.
Also, the access to the site would be from N. Main
Street, keeping vehicular noise and emissions from
adjacent residential single-family land uses. Thus, the
project would not result in incompatible land uses.
Generally, incompatible land uses occur from siting
10
11A-118
General Plan Excerpt Per Comment
Project Consistent
land uses such as industrial uses next to residential or
residential uses next to high noise level uses, (e.g.
airports).
Policy 5.4: Support land uses which are consistent with
As described previously, the proposed project is
the Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element
consistent with the build out intensity of the site as
anticipated by the General Plan. In addition, the project
is consistent with provision of a gateway to the City and
existing development along the Main Street corridor. In
addition, the General Plan land use map designates the
surrounding areas to the northwest, northeast, south of
the Santa Ana I-5 Freeway and along Main Street north
of Seventeenth Street as District Centers. Thus, the
District Center land use designation of the site is
consistent with the surrounding District Center
designations along Main Street.
Policy 5.5: Encourage development which is compatible
As described in the previous responses, the proposed
with, and supportive of surrounding land uses.
project would provide multi -family residential units along
the Main Street urban multi -use corridor and adjacent to
single-family residential uses. Although the single-
family residences consist of low -density one-story
structures, the change of the site from an office use, to
a residential use (although higher in density) would not
result in incompatibility. In addition, the project site is
within an employment, shopping, and business area
that the proposed residential uses would support.
"[T]he majority of employed Santa Ana residents work
Section 4.9, Population and Housing, describes that the
outside of the City, approximately 20 percent work
Santa Ana and City of Orange areas are jobs -rich. The
within the City.
existing jobs -housing ratio is 2.06 in Santa Ana and is
projected to be 2.13 in 2040. The SCAG preferred jobs
— housing ratio is 1.36. The project would reduce the
jobs -housing ratio slightly to 2.05, and to 2.11 in 2040,
as shown in Draft EIR Table 4.9-7. This would be a
beneficial effect of providing multi -family housing on the
project site, where employees can easily travel to
employment opportunities within the Santa Ana and
City of Orange areas, which are jobs -rich.
Approximately 70 percent of all residential areas within
As described by the City's General Plan Housing
the City are single-family residential neighborhoods.
Element (on page 15), Santa Ana has a rich mosaic of
Many of these neighborhoods are established and well
diverse neighborhoods many of which are made up of a
maintained, and several neighborhoods contain state
mixture of single-family, townhomes, apartments, and a
and local historic resources.
combination of industrial and residential uses. In
addition, it states (on page 44) that to protect and
stabilize residential neighborhoods, Santa Ana is
developing new residential neighborhoods in District
Centers close to employment centers to provide a
diverse community that increases housing choice to
11
11A-119
General Plan Excerpt Per Comment
Project Consistent
accommodate various needs including single- and
multiple -family housing, mobile homes, mixed/multiuse,
and special needs housing. Also, as detailed
previously, and in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic
Resources, the proposed project would not result in
impacts to historic resources.
To protect and stabilize residential neighborhoods,
As described previously, the General Plan land use
support the City's economic base, and provide housing
map designates the surrounding areas to the northwest,
for the local workforce, Santa Ana is developing new
northeast, south of the Santa Ana 1-5 Freeway and
residential neighborhoods in District Centers close to
along Main Street north of Seventeenth Street as
employment centers. These District Centers include the
District Centers. Thus, the District Center land use
Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone, MacArthur Place,
designation of the site is consistent with the
Downtown Santa Ana, City Place, and similar locations.
surrounding District Center designations along Main
[... ] These residential neighborhoods are intensely
Street. In addition, the site is transit oriented with two
urbanized, transit oriented, and explicitly designed to
OCTA bus routes that provide service every 10-20
support a full array of housing needs in Santa Ana.
minutes Monday through Friday and connects to the
Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the
Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center that provides rail
service throughout Califomia.
The City has identified areas for future development
As described previously, the General Plan land use
and mixed uses within its District Centers and transit
map designates the surrounding areas to the northwest,
corridors. [... ] The sites are specifically chosen to
northeast, south of the Santa Ana 1-5 Freeway and
create distinct and vibrant activity centers linked
along Main Street north of Seventeenth Street as
together with a variety of transportation options.
District Centers. Thus, the District Center land use
designation of the site is consistent with the
surrounding District Center designations along Main
Street. In addition, the site is within a transit corridor.
Main Street provides direct access to two freeways and
is transit oriented with two OCTA bus routes that
provide service every 10-20 minutes Monday through
Friday and connects to other regional transit services.
In addition, the site is surrounded by sidewalks and
adjacent to a regional bike trail. Thus, the project site is
linked to surrounding mixed -uses and provides for a
variety of transportation options.
Policy HE-1.7: Historic Preservation. Support
As described in Section 4.4, Cultural/Historic
preservation and enhancement of residential structures,
Resources, of the EIR, the proposed project would not
properties, street designs, lot patterns, and other visible
result in impacts to any historic resources, particularly
reminders of neighborhoods that are considered local
those within the Park Santiago neighborhood.
historical or cultural resources.
Comment 16: The comment states that the Project contemplates public access to the City's Santiago Park via the
proposed development and creates a private -to -public access. The comment also states that the Project document's
frequently reference the Project as a District Center, although it does not contemplate a mixed -use component, a
requirement of any District Center development. The comment concludes for those reasons, the project would be
inconsistent with and would violate the City's General Plan.
12
11A-120
Response 16: As described on page 7 of the October Clarification to the FEIR, the northern driveway would include
a public use access easement to Santiago Park. Therefore, the project would not create a private -to -public access,
but would provide for public access from Main Street to Santiago Park. The General Plan describes mixed -use land
use designation that allows for both vertical and horizontal mixed -use developments, with an emphasis on linkages to
a range of transportation options such as the proposed project. The designation takes into account the surrounding
District Center area which creates a horizontal mixed -use setting with commercial, office, and residential uses such
as the project. In addition, the City's District Center designation is not only utilized for mixed -use development
projects. As described in Response 11, required the General Plan land use map designates the surrounding areas to
the northwest, northeast, south of the Santa Ana I-5 Freeway and along Main Street north of Seventeenth Street as
District Centers. The General Plan Amendment to District Center is consistent with the surrounding District Center
designations along Main Street.
Comment 17: The comment asserts that the project would result in a potential home price devaluation and therefore,
a deprivation of the property rights of adjacent landowners.
Response 17: Refer to Response 2.
Comment 18: The comment cites case law about development agreements and states that the development
agreement can be read to unconditionally commit to an approval without first attaining CEQA compliance and without
proper preservation of the City's police powers, and any related project approval may be held invalid.
Response 18: The development agreement for the project is part of the requested approvals, as listed in the October
Clarification to the FEIR, and is contemplated during approval of the project and after completion of CEQA
documentation. On November 19, 2019 the City Council voted to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report No.
2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031), adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The EIR analyzed the project and the
Development Agreement. The second reading of the Development Agreement is scheduled for December 3, 2019.
The CEQA compliance was completed prior to the approval of the development agreement for the project.
Comment 19: The comment states that if the City Council approves the project it would be subject to challenge by a
referendum and that opponents to the project have increased through time. The comment states that should a
referendum be conducted the City would have a mandatory duty to process it.
Response 19: The city notes the rights of the citizens of the City to conduct a referendum.
Comment 20: The comment states that neighboring properties are entitled to due process and a valid notice of the
hearing must be provided. The comment provides a case law discussion and a description of the noticing
requirements within the City's Municipal Code. The comment also states that the public hearing notice did not include
the recommendation of the planning commission.
Response 20: Pursuant to existing requirements for noticing, the November 19, 2019 City Council public hearing
notice was posted in the Orange County Register and mailed to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the
project site and included the Planning Commission's recommendation. "On October 28, 2019, the Planning
Commission by a vote of 3:2, voted to recommend denial of the project."
Comment 21: The comment requests the City Council deny the project, states that PNSA reserves its right to submit
further public comment and requests written notice in advance of any future meetings or notices of determination
related to the Project.
13
11A-121
Response 21: The City notes the request to deny the project and public comment regarding the project will continue
to be accepted. The Park Santiago Neighborhood will continue to be notified of any meetings regarding the project.
14
11A-122