The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCORRESPONDANCE - 11ADiana From: Yvette Bojorquez <vettersout@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 11:51 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Development This is a message to express my strong opposition to the building of the 2525 Main St Development. It's just not the right place for a new development period! Just around the corner in the city of Orange you can see all the brand new apartment buildings already in progress, not to mention the recently opened apartments on Town and County near Barnes and Noble plaza and the already approved apartments to go into the Main Place Mall area. I urge the City Council to vote against this project which only adds to overcrowded living conditions. Enough is enough. Instead please consider assistance for upgrading current slum housing in the city. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Yvette Bojorquez Santa Ana resident for 6 years, Santa Ana employee for 22 years. Salas, Diana From: Heidi Miles <hidemiles@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 11:38 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Development To Whom it May Concern: I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the 2525 Main Street Development. I have lived in Santa Ana (Floral Park) for 22 years, and in the last 5 years, I have watched the decline in the quality of living in this city. The number of transients and homeless that walk up and down my street are increasing. I have never really been concerned about my safety, until recently. I don't even like walking my dog by myself anymore, due to the transients that now walk around our neighborhood. Now, I am concerned about the housing development that is proposed on Main Street, and the impact that it will have on our traffic in and out of our neighborhood, and surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, the overflow parking that will affect the neighborhood of Park Santiago. The Santa Ana City Council has a responsibility to it's constituents to listen to their concerns over quality of living. With the addition of all of the housing being built in that general area ( Parker Street and Town and Country,) I would say there should be extreme concern over quality of living for our existing residents. It saddens me greatly what is going on with Santa Ana with the homeless crisis, increased sales tax, lack of traffic planning, and the lack of law enforcement. For the first time since our move into Floral Park, I am now starting to plan my move out of this city, and the neighborhood that has been so dear to me, and my whole family. I can't continue to live here. Sincerely, Heidi Miles Floral Park Resident Diana From: Sonja Melching <sonjamelching@att.net> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 11:23 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 N Main Dear Santa Ana City Council, Your Planning Commission has three times recommended that you do not approve the project at 2525 N. Main Street. Please trust the expertise of the people you hired to make those types of recommendations for the good of the city. Please DO NOT vote to move this project forward tomorrow night. You have zoning in place for a reason, and changing those designations puts forward a horrible precedent for our ENTIRE city. Additionally, the city WILL face potential lawsuits, and/or a voter initiative, should you continue to support this project. I wonder, will the developer cover all the costs associated with lawsuits and voter initiatives, in addition to Mr. Solorio's mayoral campaign? It will take pretty deep, corrupt pockets to do so. As a dedicated Santa Ana voter, I urge you to stop supporting this residential development project. It's never too late to make a good decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sonja Melching 2205 N Heliotrope Drive Salas, Diana From: John <jaab@road runner.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 11:13 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Development is bad for the adjacent neighborhoods mainly because the infrastructure won't support it. We have lived in the Floral Park neighborhood for SO years. This development is apposed by all my neighbors & adjacent neighborhoods. John & Blanche Barneich Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Diana From: Joseph Duffy <jduffy@truthemail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 11:07 AM To: eComment Subject: opposed to the 2525 Main Street Development. FOR THE RECORD. We are strongly opposed to the 2525 Main Street Development. Please do the right thing. Joe and Donna Duffy 2208 N. Ross St. Santa Ana CA. 92706 Salas, Diana From: ddkaraffa <ddkaraffa@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 11:06 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Development As a resident of North Santa Ana, I wish to express my strong opposition to the development at 2525 Main Street, and my deep disappointment at our Council's indifference to the wishes of the public and their approval of the developer's plans. By supporting this poorly considered project, the council is forcing the voting public to undertake a lengthy legal battle that will only cost the voters and the city to expend funds unnecessarily. It will also ensure that this issue remains in the forefront of the citizens minds any there is an election or recall. Now is the time to do the right thing and respect the clearly communicated wishes of the Santiago Park residents. Regards, David Karaffa Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Salas, Diana From: Barbara Doyle <barbarafdoyle@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:57 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Project Not good for the neighborhood, which already has terrible issues with crime, homeless people, property values. The politicians who push this agenda will face serious reelection issues and a huge grassroots opposition. Sent from my Whone Salas, Diana From: Dpatterson <Dpattersonl7@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:51 AN To: eComment Subject: NO NO NO NO on 2525 ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO The rezoning amendment and development agreement of the 2525 North Main Street apartment project!!! It is bad for our community and BAD for Santa Ana!!! VOTE NO... LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND (SURPRISE!) SUPPORT THEIR DECISION TO OPPOSE 2525 rezoning amendment and development agreement... NOW! D Patterson North Santa Ana Sent from my Whone Diana From: Solethiewan <solethiewan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:48 AM To: eComment Subject: Opposed Why do you politicians ignore the wishes of the public? WE ARE OPPOSED to this 2525 Main St. Development. the next step will have to be a lawsuit and then a recall... Salas, Diana From: Wilhite Home <home@wilhite5.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:45 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Hello, I'm a resident of Floral Park and am against the proposed development of this property. The area is already congested with traffic and it also sets a bad precedent for future development that will negatively impact the quality of life in my neighborhood. Thank you, Leeta Wilhite 2002 N Victoria Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 Diana From: Linda Russell <hombre.russell@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:44 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 N. Main Development Try thinking of the residents that will be negatively impacted by this project.... Does everything always have to come down to the almighty dollar I think we have enough high density condos and apartments without adding more. More traffic, more congestion, more people. Please give me something to think more positively of you, our local government and stop this development. Linda Russell Salas, Diana From: ptornell <ptornell@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:41 AM To: eComment Subject: Opposition to 2525 Please note that we are opposed to the proposed development at 2525 N Main Street, Santa Ana. Edward and Patricia Tornell Floral Park 1717 N Heliotrope Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Diana From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Santa Ana City Council, Rochelle Landry <landryrochelle@gmail.com> Monday, December 02, 2019 10:33 AM eComment Opposition to the 2525 Main Street Development Please note my op osition to the 2525 Main Street development. Rochelle Landry 1811 Heliotrope Dr, Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas, Diana From: Laurie Z. Horton <Ihorton@ldzgroup.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:30 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525: The People Have Spoken. Act Accordingly - NO. Salas, Diana From: Joelle Meese <joellemeese@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:29 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Development To Whom It May Concern: As a long time resident of Floral Park and a lifelong resident of Santa Ana, I'd like to state my strong opposition to the 2525 Main Street development. As anyone who lives and works in this area can attest, the traffic is already extremely difficult in this area during morning and evening commute times. How could anyone think that adding to this problem with even more commuters will be helpful? This in addition to the fact that there is already more housing being built at Parker St. and Town and Country Rd. - literally around the corner from 2525 Main St. Over my 49 years in Santa Ana, my family and I have witnessed and been affected by: increased housing density without realistic thought to traffic planning, increased homeless issues, increased sales tax and decreased quality of education. I have to wonder what's going on in the administration of the City of Santa Ana. My husband and I once looked forward to buying a home in Santa Ana, where I grew up as a fourth generation Santa Ana resident. We looked forward to raising our three boys in this city but over the years we have become more and more disappointed. It saddens me to say that my husband and I are now considering leaving Santa Ana and moving to a city that is better run and holds its citizens in higher regard. 2525 Main Street will help us solidify our decision. Sincerely, Joelle Meese Sent from my iPhone Salas, Diana From: bart beach <bartonabeach@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:24 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 i am against any development at 2525 main! especially the proposed housing project barton a beach 2918 greenleaf santa ana Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device Salas, Diana From: Stephen Hryniewicki <shryniewicki@live.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:20 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Development I strongly oppose the proposed development Please do not pass this as it will change forever the surrounding neighborhoods. Sent from my iPhone Salas, Diana From: Mike Zachan <mpzachan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:15 AM To: eComment Subject: Rezoning for New Development The city council is taking a dangerous step down a slippery slope if you vote to approve rezoning in residential neighborhoods. Santa Any needs new development & needs to encourage developers and businesses to move here. But this is the wrong way to do this. Your own planning commission has rejected this development not once, but three times. Keep in mind that your neighborhood just might be the next one the council decides to rezone. Mike Zachan Floral Park Diana From: Cindy <cspitzc@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:07 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main St development As residents of Floral Park, we are strongly against the development at 2525 Main St. We urge you, as representatives of the voters, to vote NO. Cindy Spitzer and Paul Walls Salas, Diana From: Wally McCloud <wally.mccloud@bbraunusa.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:06 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 development Yet again another demonstration of corruption to get an initiative passed. Shame on you allH WM Wally McCloud Vice President of Sales, Western Zone B.Braun Medical Office phone: 949-660-2437 Cell: 714-615-5099 wally.mccloud@bbraunusa.com The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney -client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of the company of the sender of this e-mail. Unauthorized use, disclosure, or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Diana From: Tracey <traceyellyn@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:04 AM To: eComment Subject: Do Not Pass 2525 Main St Project Hello! I am against the 2525 Main St development project. This will add undue burden to our streets and historic neighborhoods, and greatly devalue the property around it. Please vote to reject the project. Thank you! Tracey Stein Resident, Floral Park Tracey Stein 714.925.3898 Salas, Diana From: Aleda Barton <abarton131@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:02 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main St. Development Please, please do not approve the development on Main St. With all the high rise apartments already being constructed nearby, this additional development is not necessary. Here are a few logical reasons why it shouldn't be approved. 1. Water shortage. Unless there is a solution for providing water for multiple families, there should be a moratorium on high density/high rise apartments and condos. Water rates are going up in Santa Ana and I'm assuming it's because of a water shortage. 2. Traffic congestion for our neighbors in Santiago Park and surrounding areas. All the extra autos coming from all the developments in and around the same area will cause so much more freeway traffic that additional lanes will have to be built to accommodate the extra traffic. 3. Although we are bombarded with the fact that there are not enough homes for people in CA., I believe that greed plays a large part in allowing developers to continue to build until all space is filled. Don't let greed be the motivator for allowing the Main Street Development to be adopted. Sincerely, Aleda and Gary Barton 1 Diana From: Susan Muzila <scmuzila@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:02 AM To: eComment Subject: opposition to 2525 Main Street I live in the Floral Park Neighborhood and am opposed to the 2525 Main Street project that is supported by the City Council. I have to say I am pretty disappointed at the City Council's response to the opposition. Do you not sit in your seat to support the community and their benefit or is it simply about money and donations to your seat? What is the purpose of zoning restrictions if they are to change dramatically? Aren't they put in place for a reason? If this zoning is changed you do realize this will effect other areas that will also attempt the same thing. I don't think the community is against growth but it's about what type of growth allowed. To use an example: Hair growth is welcomed, but not in certain areas. Hair on your head is where it belongs, but long hair on your feet does not. I think you've heard enough opposition and all the reasons this project doesn't fit in that space. Please support your community in asking the builder to design something that is more suited to that area than what is proposed. Susan C. Muzila 562/889-9986 Salas, Diana From: Daniel Beaudreau <planetools32@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:57 AM To: eComment I object rezoning 2525 main street. You are doing a great job of making Santa Ana even more congested and allowing developers grab any land available. We need open green spaces! Your parks look like shit and are fully of it. I dare you to ask a developer to spend their money in the parks. I know it's all about the money, but you chose to make the city a sanctuary city. Take a step back and remember who pays the city tax dollars. Homeowners not renters or homeless. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Diana From: Marc LaFont <orders@tributefolders.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:55 AM To: eComment Subject: DO NOT APPROVE 2525! We strongly implore City Council NOT to approve the development at 2525 N. Main Street. This is a HUGE mistake. Don't make the same mistake twice! Salas, Diana From: Mark Rothenberg <markllaa@me.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:54 AM To: eComment Subject: Opposition to 2525 Attachments: MAR2525OBJ11182019.pdf, MAR25250BJ11182019.pdf Please find attached a copy of my prior correspondence on the issue and please add it to the record of the proceeding. I believe the Commission has made a number of legal errors in the adoption of the EIR and violated the Brown Act given the linkage between the two sites (2525 and the Cube). I also believe that the Development Agreement is entirely deficient as set forth in my letter. I ask that the City either defer the item to January or reverse its decision. Many Thanks, Mark Rothenberg, Esq. 2042 N Ross Street Santa Ana, California 92706 MARK A. ROTHENBERG, ESQ. 2042 NORTH ROSS STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92706 MARK 1 1 AA@M E.COM November 18, 2019 VIA EMAIL Ms. Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana PO Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 Re: Letter of Objection/Comments/Magnolia at the Park/Draft EIR (State Clearing House No. 2018021031-Santa Ana DP No. 2017-34 Dear Mr. Kelaher: This letter supplements my prior written policy and legal objections to the proposed 2525 North Main Street Project (the "Project") dated September 12, 2018 (incorporated and restated herein despite the project's modifications). The Project subordinates adjacent neighborhoods to the blight associated with an overly intensive, under -parked, and aesthetically uninteresting development. I am a resident of Santa Ana, a land use practitioner and professor of land use law. My prior letter was not adequately responded to in the EIR and the issues raised continue to plague the redesigned project. In addition and as summarized below, the amendment to the General Plan, re -zoning and adoption of the development agreement constitute extraordinarily poor planning and appear violative of California law (including the Brown Act). Request for Deferral to Mid -January As a threshold matter, the City has scheduled consideration of the Project on November 211 (one week prior to Thanksgiving). Given the magnitude and lasting impacts associated with the City's decision and the arrival of the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years, I respectfully request that the City defer consideration of the application until mid -January to ensure that all impacted residents are afforded a reasonable opportunity to offer comment and attend Council meetings. As explained below, the description of the project in notices must be revised to reflect the shifting of a portion of the Discovery Cube's business operations (parking) to the Project site. Piecemeal General Planning The subject property is a marquis property in the City. Unfortunately, the City has not completed its General Plan update. From information available online, it appears that the City's Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 2 of 6 last meaningful modifications to the Economic Element to the General Plan took place in the late 1990s. By eliminating over three hundred thousand square feet of commercially designated space before completing the General Plan update, the City loses the ability to cogently and coherently plan for development. The amendment of a General Plan is a legislative decision. It would be entirely reasonable for the City to deny the application as opposed to engaging in piecemeal planning without a comprehensive and current understanding of both economic and development trends on a Citywide basis. Failure to Consider Economic Implications of the Loss of Office/Commercial Space The applicant and EIR assume that a 387,465 square foot office building may be built onsite pursuant to the existing zoning and General Plan designations. Although this size is debatable, it is shocking that the City would move forward on the basis of the applicant's financial projections without commissioning a study of the economic benefits associated with a comparable commercial buildout. Assembling the data supportive of such a study is not particularly difficult. In 2009, the City of Pasadena Chamber of Commerce prepared a study advocating for the preservation of office space. In addition to numerous one-time permit fees, the Chamber estimated that a 250,000 square foot building dramatically improve the local economy both in terms of direct tax revenue and secondary economic impacts. In contrast to residential development, the impacts to municipal services would be significantly lower for office. An excerpt of the study follows and the study itself is attached: [For a 250,000 square foot office building:] Business license fees would bring $3,750 for the building itself and an additional $58,000 in business license fees for enterprises in the building. The 250,000 sf. building averages $687,500 in annual payments for electricity and $375,000 for other local utilities. That usage generates $134,000 in utility user taxes, again not including taxes paid on telephone and other communications services. That same 250,000 sf. office complex would generate approximately $50,000,000 annually in salaries and gross receipts of $125,000,000. The operations within the complex can be reasonably estimated to generate an additional $87,500,000 in salaries paid to supporting workers throughout the region and $231,250,000 in additional receipts in the region. The 1,000 workers in the building can be estimated to spend a small amount of their wages in local businesses, as well. Reasonably, $2,640,000 can be conservatively expected to flow into the local economy as a result of casual spending by office workers in a 250,000 sf. Complex. That is 50% of the already conservative average local expenditure of $110 per office employee, based on Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 3 of 6 2004 data compiled the International Council of Shopping Centers. This would include money spent on lunches and dinners, casual shopping and other miscellaneous spending, including gas purchases, but not services such as dry cleaners or health club memberships. See, "The Case for Commercial Real Estate: Office Building A Strong Economic Future for Pasadena, 'Ittp://ww2.citvofpasadena net/trans/TAC°/`20REPORTS/060409/ITEM 4A 060409 TAC.PDF.ndf (Last visited, November 15, 2019). Given that the Pasadena Chamber prepared these estimates in 2009, it is highly likely that the figures would be considerably higher for an office building that is 35% larger than the 250,000 square foot office building evaluated by the Pasadena Chamber. Brown Act Violations The Project has been revised such that a portion of the site will be bifurcated and made subject to a long-term cross -parking and use agreement with the Discovery Cube of Orange County. Neither the staff report nor the proposed final EIR provide a meaningful analysis of the impact of pedestrian flow across Main Street during the museum's operational hours and the project notices have not been revised to reflect that a portion of the Discovery Cube's operations (parking) will be incorporated into the Project. Put simply, museum parking is significantly different than residential parking and the interrelationship of the two sites is not adequately noticed nor explained. The failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Brown Act. Because the parking lot constitutes an accessory use of a different primary user (the Discovery Cube), the act in designating parking for the museum onsite should be specifically noticed and analyzed. Re- configuring access to Park Santiago should also be separately noticed. Pedestrian ingress and egress across Main Street attributable to parking should also be carefully analyzed. Development Agreement/Violations of City Code & Charter/Brown Act. The Developer's removal of certain concessions from the Development Agreement given the Planning Commission and neighborhood's refusal to get on board with the development program (e.g., withdrawing a commitment to install neighborhood monuments) strikes me as petty. It is also clear to me that staff could have/should have negotiated a far better deal. For example: the term of the Development Agreement is four (4) years with two optional one (1) year extensions. See Development Agreement Section 2.4.1. The cost for exercising an extension is $50,000. It is unclear if the $50,000 is a one-time payment for two years or if it were contemplated that the developer would pay $50,000 per each one-year extension. The staff report also indicates this sum was intended to make the City whole for lost revenue. This is inaccurate. The Development Agreement indicates that the funds are only intended to recover a portion of the City's loss. The financial projections for the Project (which are themselves entirely questionable) purportedly indicate that the City stands to gain in excess of $464,000 per year following construction. It is therefore unclear why the Development Agreement only requires a $50,000 extension payment for two years. Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 4 of 6 The proposed Development Agreement provides legal recognition to a series of largely private commitments, provides a number of entirely uncertain/vague promises of future action, delegates powers to City employees in violation of the City's Charter, and facilitates public contracting of public spaces without meaningful notice. Examples of some of the defects in the Development Agreement follow: • Section 3.6.1 provides a protocol by which the developer will submit covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) to the City Attorney for review and "approval" without Council consideration. The review criteria is limited to whether the CCRs conflict with the Development Agreement, General Plan, and development conditions. However, the City Charter does not give the City Attorney authority to "approve" CCRs. See Section 703 of the Charter. Section 3.6.1 does not provide any opportunity for public input or Council input. • Section 4.2.1 (a) requires the developer provide and maintain public art valued at .5% of the design, engineering, and construction costs for the Project. This provision does not indicate where the art will be installed, how the calculations of value will be determined, and whether and how the Council would approve the submission. Given that no plans have been submitted, such an has not been reviewed/evaluated commensurate with the EIR and aesthetic impacts associated with the project. • Section 4.2.1(b) delegates the management and construction of unspecified improvements to Park Santiago and appears to violate both the Brown Act and public contracting requirements. • Section 4.2.1(c) provides for benefits given solely to the Park Santiago neighborhood including private security patrols, street -light enhancements, decorative concrete, and graffiti abatement. Although the developer should agree to these items (which could have been pan of an overall settlement with the neighbors and private covenants), they are problematic as they appear to convey private benefits to a discreet/defined area without public input. Even assuming this were appropriate, why are such benefits not being conveyed to Floral Park, West Floral Park, Washington Square and other neighborhoods south of 17'h street that will also be impacted by the Project? Although the City may take the view that public funds are not being expended, the reality is that such concessions constitute a portion of the overall value of the Project to the City, are being provided in an attempt to mitigate impacts, and are classified as being "public" in nature. • Exhibit H to the Development Agreement identifies a public park (Park Santiago) as being within the private roving patrol area. The adoption of a subsequent security/patrol regimen requires both public input and review per the Brown Act and appears to delegate policing to a third party. Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 5 of 6 • Section 4.8 requires the developer submit an overcrowding mitigation plan. This is surprising and constitutes an implicit admission that the City's current Code and processes are ill equipped to regulate usage levels in apartments. Nevertheless, the Development Agreement does not provide for any compliance measures beyond the provision of such a plan and does not allocate resources for enforcement (an item that should have been negotiated). • Section 4.9 requires the developer to develop a local live work plan and entrusts the City Manager with approval. The Section does not appear to mandate compliance -merely that the plan be submitted. Section 501 of the City Charter does not authorize the City Manager to approve such plans. The same concern is evident for Section 4.10 (local sourcing plan). • Section 6.1 requires the developer to submit an annual monitoring report. No parameters for such a report are given. • Section 7 does not provide adequate remedies beyond termination of the Agreement. For example, the Agreement should specify that upon termination, owner may be required to conform the property to applicable changes to the Code or cause the prior zoning to revert. Spot Zoning/Contract Zoning As set forth in my prior correspondence, the Project constitutes an example of impermissible spot zoning. The final proposed EIR attempts to sho-fly this problem away by explaining that there are no other properties zoned Professional Office in proximity of the site. Therefore, the EIR concludes that the selected zoning is appropriate. Put another way, the EIR attempts to answer a negative with a negative. There are however commercially zoned properties to the north of the site. There are no similarly situated high -density residential developments adjacent to the project site. Given that the developer has lauded the project as being for luxury apartments, there does not appear to be a compelling public policy justification to support unlawful spot zoning in this instance, Ambiguities in the Development Agreement also give rise to a contract zoning claim. While the City is statutorily permitted to enter into development agreements in exchange for agreeing to zoning concessions, it is questionable whether concessions in a development agreement must be clearly stated and refined as opposed to vague and obtuse promises of future plans and actions that the public is not made privy to. It is therefore evident that the City's approval of the Project in reliance on the subject development agreement and conditions will be susceptible to claims of unlawful contract zoning. As a land use professional, I respectfully submit that the Council's approval of the Project would be: Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 6 of 6 • Entirely short-sighted; • Premised on unrealistic financial projections that have already eroded and been undercut due to projections of loss of taxable property value to adjacent properties; • Made without the benefit of a fully updated General Plan; and • Deprives Santa Ana residents of what could be a vibrant economic engine and resulting high paying jobs. Given the legal and practical infirmities associated with the Project, I respectfully urge the Council to deny the application. Please further refrain from referring the matter back to the Planning Commission. Alternatively, please consider generating a comparative economic analysis of the positive impact of an office development and defer consideration of the item until after the new year. Respec!If^ Submitted,� Mark A. Rothenberg MARK A. ROTHENBERG, ESQ. 2042 NORTH Ross STREET SANTA ANA, CALI FOR NIA 92706 MARK1 IAA@ME.COM November 18, 2019 VIA EMAIL Ms. Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Planning and Building Agency City of Santa Ana PO Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 Re: Letter of Objection/Comments/Magnolia at the Park/Draft EIR (State Clearing House No. 2018021031-Santa Ana DP No. 2017-34 Dear Mr. Kelaher: This letter supplements my prior written policy and legal objections to the proposed 2525 North Main Street Project (the "Project") dated September 12, 2018 (incorporated and restated herein despite the project's modifications). The Project subordinates adjacent neighborhoods to the blight associated with an overly intensive, under -parked, and aesthetically uninteresting development. I am a resident of Santa Ana, a land use practitioner and professor of land use law. My prior letter was not adequately responded to in the EIR and the issues raised continue to plague the redesigned project. In addition and as summarized below, the amendment to the General Plan, re -zoning, and adoption of the development agreement constitute extraordinarily poor planning and appear violative of California law (including the Brown Act). Request for Deferral to Mid -January As a threshold matter, the City has scheduled consideration of the Project on November 211 (one week prior to Thanksgiving). Given the magnitude and lasting impacts associated with the City's decision and the arrival of the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years, I respectfully request that the City defer consideration of the application until mid -January to ensure that all impacted residents are afforded a reasonable opportunity to offer comment and attend Council meetings. As explained below, the description of the project in notices must be revised to reflect the shifting of a portion of the Discovery Cube's business operations (parking) to the Project site. Piecemeal General Planning The subject property is a marquis property in the City. Unfortunately, the City has not completed its General Plan update. From information available online, it appears that the City's Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 2 of 6 last meaningful modifications to the Economic Element to the General Plan took place in the late 1990s. By eliminating over three hundred thousand square feet of commercially designated space before completing the General Plan update, the City loses the ability to cogently and coherently plan for development. The amendment of a General Plan is a legislative decision. It would be entirely reasonable for the City to deny the application as opposed to engaging in piecemeal planning without a comprehensive and current understanding of both economic and development trends on a Citywide basis. Failure to Consider Economic Implications of the Loss of Office/Commercial Space The applicant and EIR assume that a 387,465 square foot office building may be built onsite pursuant to the existing zoning and General Plan designations. Although this size is debatable, it is shocking that the City would move forward on the basis of the applicant's financial projections without commissioning a study of the economic benefits associated with a comparable commercial buildout. Assembling the data supportive of such a study is not particularly difficult. In 2009, the City of Pasadena Chamber of Commerce prepared a study advocating for the preservation of office space. In addition to numerous one-time permit fees, the Chamber estimated that a 250,000 square foot building dramatically improve the local economy both in terms of direct tax revenue and secondary economic impacts. In contrast to residential development, the impacts to municipal services would be significantly lower for office. An excerpt of the study follows and the study itself is attached: [For a 250.000 square foot office building-4 Business license fees would bring $3,750 for the building itself and an additional $58,000 in business license fees for enterprises in the building. The 250,000 sf. building averages $687,500 in annual payments for electricity and $375,000 for other local utilities. That usage generates $134,000 in utility user taxes, again not including taxes paid on telephone and other communications services. That same 250,000 sf. office complex would generate approximately $50,000,000 annually in salaries and gross receipts of $125,000,000. The operations within the complex can be reasonably estimated to generate an additional $87,500,000 in salaries paid to supporting workers throughout the region and $231,250,000 in additional receipts in the region. The 1,000 workers in the building can be estimated to spend a small amount of their wages in local businesses, as well. Reasonably, $2,640,000 can be conservatively expected to flow into the local economy as a result of casual spending by office workers in a 250,000 sf. Complex. That is 50% of the already conservative average local expenditure of $110 per office employee, based on Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 3 of 6 2004 data compiled the International Council of Shopping Centers. This would include money spent on lunches and dinners, casual shopping and other miscellaneous spending, including gas purchases, but not services such as dry cleaners or health club memberships. See, "The Case for Commercial Real Estate: ice Building A Strong Economic Future for Pasadena, "httl2:Hww2.citvofpasadena net/trans/TAC%20REPORTS/060409/ITEM 4A 060409 TAC.PDF.ndf (Last visited, November 15, 2019). Given that the Pasadena Chamber prepared these estimates in 2009, it is highly likely that the figures would be considerably higher for an office building that is 35% larger than the 250,000 square foot office building evaluated by the Pasadena Chamber. Brown Act Violations The Project has been revised such that a portion of the site will be bifurcated and made subject to a long-term cross -parking and use agreement with the Discovery Cube of Orange County. Neither the staff report nor the proposed final EIR provide a meaningful analysis of the impact of pedestrian flow across Main Street during the museum's operational hours and the project notices have not been revised to reflect that a portion of the Discovery Cube's operations (parking) will be incorporated into the Project. Put simply, museum parking is significantly different than residential parking and the interrelationship of the two sites is not adequately noticed nor explained. The failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Brown Act. Because the parking lot constitutes an accessory use of a different primary user (the Discovery Cube), the act in designating parking for the museum onsite should be specifically noticed and analyzed. Re- configuring access to Park Santiago should also be separately noticed. Pedestrian ingress and egress across Main Street attributable to parking should also be carefully analyzed. Development Agreement/Violations of City Code & Charter/Brown Act. The Developer's removal of certain concessions from the Development Agreement given the Planning Commission and neighborhood's refusal to get on board with the development program (e.g., withdrawing a commitment to install neighborhood monuments) strikes me as petty. It is also clear to me that staff could have/should have negotiated a far better deal. For example: the term of the Development Agreement is four (4) years with two optional one (1) year extensions. See Development Agreement Section 2.4.1. The cost for exercising an extension is $50,000. It is unclear if the $50,000 is a one-time payment for two years or if it were contemplated that the developer would pay $50,000 per each one-year extension. The staff report also indicates this sum was intended to make the City whole for lost revenue. This is inaccurate. The Development Agreement indicates that the funds are only intended to recover a portion of the City's loss. The financial projections for the Project (which are themselves entirely questionable) purportedly indicate that the City stands to gain in excess of $464,000 per year following construction. It is therefore unclear why the Development Agreement only requires a $50,000 extension payment for two years. Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 4 of 6 The proposed Development Agreement provides legal recognition to a series of largely private commitments, provides a number of entirely uncertain/vague promises of future action, delegates powers to City employees in violation of the City's Charter, and facilitates public contracting of public spaces without meaningful notice. Examples of some of the defects in the Development Agreement follow: • Section 3.6.1 provides a protocol by which the developer will submit covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) to the City Attorney for review and "approval" without Council consideration. The review criteria is limited to whether the CCRs conflict with the Development Agreement, General Plan, and development conditions. However, the City Charter does not give the City Attorney authority to "approve" CCRs. See Section 703 of the Charter. Section 3.6.1 does not provide any opportunity for public input or Council input. • Section 4.2.1 (a) requires the developer provide and maintain public art valued at .5% of the design, engineering, and construction costs for the Project. This provision does not indicate where the art will be installed, how the calculations of value will be determined, and whether and how the Council would approve the submission. Given that no plans have been submitted, such art has not been reviewed/evaluated commensurate with the EIR and aesthetic impacts associated with the project. • Section 4.2.1(b) delegates the management and construction of unspecified improvements to Park Santiago and appears to violate both the Brown Act and public contracting requirements. • Section 4.2.1(c) provides for benefits given solely to the Park Santiago neighborhood including private security patrols, street -light enhancements, decorative concrete, and graffiti abatement. Although the developer should agree to these items (which could have been part of an overall settlement with the neighbors and private covenants), they are problematic as they appear to convey private benefits to a discreet/defined area without public input. Even assuming this were appropriate, why are such benefits not being conveyed to Floral Park, West Floral Park, Washington Square and other neighborhoods south of 171h street that will also be impacted by the Project? Although the City may take the view that public funds are not being expended, the reality is that such concessions constitute a portion of the overall value of the Project to the City, are being provided in an attempt to mitigate impacts, and are classified as being "public" in nature. • Exhibit H to the Development Agreement identifies a public park (Park Santiago) as being within the private roving patrol area. 'Be adoption of a subsequent security/patrol regimen requires both public input and review per the Brown Act and appears to delegate policing to a third party. Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 5 of 6 • Section 4.8 requires the developer submit an overcrowding mitigation plan. This is surprising and constitutes an implicit admission that the City's current Code and processes are ill equipped to regulate usage levels in apartments. Nevertheless, the Development Agreement does not provide for any compliance measures beyond the provision of such a plan and does not allocate resources for enforcement (an item that should have been negotiated). • Section 4.9 requires the developer to develop a local live work plan and entrusts the City Manager with approval. The Section does not appear to mandate compliance -merely that the plan be submitted. Section 501 of the City Charter does not authorize the City Manager to approve such plans. The same concern is evident for Section 4.10 (local sourcing plan). • Section 6.1 requires the developer to submit an annual monitoring report. No parameters for such a report are given. • Section 7 does not provide adequate remedies beyond termination of the Agreement. For example, the Agreement should specify that upon termination, owner may be required to conform the property to applicable changes to the Code or cause the prior zoning to revert. Spot Zoning/Contract Zoning As set forth in my prior correspondence, the Project constitutes an example of impermissible spot zoning. The final proposed EIR attempts to sho-fly this problem away by explaining that there are no other properties zoned Professional Office in proximity of the site. Therefore, the EIR concludes that the selected zoning is appropriate. Put another way, the EIR attempts to answer a negative with a negative. There are however commercially zoned properties to the north of the site. There are no similarly situated high -density residential developments adjacent to the project site. Given that the developer has lauded the project as being for luxury apartments, there does not appear to be a compelling public policy justification to support unlawful spot zoning in this instance. Ambiguities in the Development Agreement also give rise to a contract zoning claim. While the City is statutorily permitted to enter into development agreements in exchange for agreeing to zoning concessions, it is questionable whether concessions in a development agreement must be clearly stated and refined as opposed to vague and obtuse promises of future plans and actions that the public is not made privy to. It is therefore evident that the City's approval of the Project in reliance on the subject development agreement and conditions will be susceptible to claims of unlawful contract zoning. As a land use professional, I respectfully submit that the Council's approval of the Project would be: Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 6 of 6 • Entirely short-sighted; • Premised on unrealistic financial projections that have already eroded and been undercut due to projections of loss of taxable property value to adjacent properties; • Made without the benefit of a fully updated General Plan; and • Deprives Santa Ana residents of what could be a vibrant economic engine and resulting high paying jobs. Given the legal and practical infirmities associated with the Project, I respectfully urge the Council to deny the application. Please further refrain from referring the matter back to the Planning Commission. Alternatively, please consider generating a comparative economic analysis of the positive impact of an office development and defer consideration of the item until after the new year. Respectfoly Submitted Mark A. Rothenberg Salas, Diana From: Robin <robin@ronandjoe.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:54 AM To: eComment Subject: STOP the 2525 Main St. project! To Whom it May Concern, My husband and I are opposed to this development because it is hard enough to live in North Santa Ana so close to the 5 freeway entrance. There is too much traffic. Too much racing through our neighborhood. Too much congestion. This will destroy our neighborhood and no one will want to live here. Sincerely, Robin and Ron Romain Salas, Diana From: Marc LaFont <marc!afont@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:52 AM To: eComment Subject: NO ON 2525! Please reject the redevelopment at 2525 Main Street. It's been turned down three times by the planning commission is and clearly opposed by ALL neighboring communities. Please do the right thing by your constituents and do NOT approve this project! 1 Salas, Diana From: Di Willis <diwillis@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:51 AM To: eComment Subject: Stop 2525 Main St Project I am a Santa Ana resident and I strongly oppose the 2525 Main Street Project. Diane Willis 2018 Greenleaf St Santa Ana 92706 Salas, Diana From: Taylor, Summer <sumtaylor@deloitte.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:44 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street- VOTE NO Dear Council Members, I understand you will be voting on the 2525 Project this Tuesday. I am a life long Santa Ana resident, having grown up and owned a home in Park Santiago, and currently own a home in Floral Park. My retired parents also own a home in Park Santiago. I urge you to preserve these historic neighborhoods and the single family residential home values by VOTING AGAINST THE 2525 PROJECT. The city has numerous multi -family and mixed use projects that have already been approved, including the development of residences at Main Place Mall. Furthermore, the city of Orange has approved similar projects in the Main Street area. The 2525 Project will reduce property values for Park Santiago home owners and neighboring communities, increase traffic congestion even further, and will not be beneficial to the city long term. I understand the developer has offered re-election funds and financial compensation to certain residents to support the project. I can assure you that the collective communities of Park Santiago and Floral Park will not support the re- election of any council member that votes in favor of this project. These are two unique and historic neighborhoods which have benefited from your collective efforts to improve our city, resulting in significantly higher property values over the last 10-20 years. I urge the council to not take a step that will undo those efforts. Respectfully yours, Summer Taylor 2204 N. Ross Santa Ana, CA 92706 This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by you is strictly prohibited. Deloitte refers to a Deloitte member firm, one of its related entities, or Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited ("DTTL"). Each Deloitte member firm is a separate legal entity and a member of DTTL. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloifte.com/about to learn more. v.E.l Salas, Diana From: Linda Chapel <lindaleechapel@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:46 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main I firmly oppose the apartment development at 2525 Main Street. This is not the kind of land use development the city requires. There are so many other possibilities. Has the city even met its federal green belt obligation? Sincerely Linda Chapel 421 W. Santa Clara Sent from Yahoo Mail for Wad Salas, Diana From: Kelly Reinberger <newsjunkie@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9A6 AM To: eComment Subject: NO 2525 Main 1. Trust the City's General Plan. 2. Listen to the residents and tax payers who will be adversely affected. 3. Respect the Planning Commission's rejection to amend the General Plan. 4. Respect the historic neighborhoods —you aren't building anymore of them; they are rare gems. 5. Quality of life matters. 6. Do the right thing. Sincerely, Kelly Reinberger Diana From: Mary Pero <marypero@me.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9:46 AM To: City Council Cc: eComment Subject: I oppose rezoning at 2525 N. Main. Please do not allow the rezoning plan for 2525 N Main Street. I currently reside in Floral Park, however I previously lived in Park Santiago. Rezoning 2525 N Main Street to include 265 units will destroy the neighborhood of Park Santiago, which is rich with history, family life, and community activity. These are things that we should be preserving. Consider other neighborhoods in Santa Ana that have been destroyed with giant out -of -character housing projects. Do we need more housing in Santa Ana? Yes. Does it need to be at 2525 N Main Street? No. I oppose the rezoning at 2525 N Main, Santa Ana. Mary Pero Floral Park Resident Salas, Diana From: Jeff Brumett <jeffbrumett@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 9.45 AM To: eComment Subject: Please stop 4242 I'm opposed to this development. It's amazing how many places that this apartment complex could go with in Santa Ana. I think a vote yes will cause you a loss in the next election. Sent from myMail for iOS Salas, Diana From: dibtiles < Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 12:09 PM To: eComment Subject: OPPOSITION: 2525 Main Street development I have been following this development and feel the neighborhoods impacted provide much good for the city of Santa Ana. I don't think this developer has a desire to enhance life in Santa Ana and does not care out its diverse neighborhoods. The planned development is too large for the space it has to develop. Added vehicular traffic in the already busy corridor is not welcome either. Please help save Santa Ana and revoke this developers approved development plan. David Ballantyne Salas, Diana From: shelley cantin <shelleycantin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 12:24 PM To: eComment Cc: shelley cantin Subject: Zoning and Health Hello to those who will read and listen! I object - strenuously - to this proposal. This issue is being pushed through by those seeking to benefit from this development. The community vastly supports opposing this intrusive structure and the lack of a fully vetted infrastructure. This impacts the community in a wide variety of ways including health concerns. We have a rampant homeless situation let's tackle those health issues first. Regards, Shelley Cantin Floral Park Resident Native Californian "A condition of complete simplicity costing no less than everything" Salas, Diana From: Julie Lake <jaslake@me.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 1:45 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Development We do NOT support this development. We've been in Floral Park 33 years and have watched as Park Santiago turned from mediocre to excellent due to the hard work and investments made to the properties. Please think of the residents of Park Santiago, one of the historic neighborhood gems of Santa Ana, before a developer who just wants to make money. We in Floral Park will also be negatively impacted by this project in terms of traffic on our already crowded streets. There are already condo developments GALORE on Memory Lane and Town & Country and there are plans to build all around Main Place mall, why do we need to wreck a great neighborhood with yet another? This is Santa Ana's chance to develop this property more along the lines of cultural attractions, building on the proximity to Bowers and the Cube. We want to be thought of as a fun place to visit and shop, not just the place where all the homeless are dumped. Please do what's best for Santa Ana, not what crooked politicians in Santa Ana and Sacramento think is the best way to line their pockets. Sincerely, Chuck and Julie Lake 2028 Greenleaf Street Santa Ana Salas, Diana From: Rachel Wilson <rachelwilson@wilsongreens.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:07 PM To: eComment Subject: Opposition 2525 Main Development We oppose the development on 2525 Main. Regards, Rachel & Joe Wilson Floral Park Residents Get Outlook for iOS Salas, Diana From: Michael Conradson <mikeconradson@me.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 3:30 PM To: eComment Subject: Disappointed I am grateful for the Council members that saw the issue from the neighbors side that will have to endure the future problems of this development. Thank you. I felt betrayed by Cecilia and others. Bribery isn't the way to make decisions for our future in Santa Ana. How can you not see the congestion that future apartments will make on this lovely neighborhood. Santa Ana used to have charm. No longer. You were bought and disappointed many, many home owners. You lost respect and that you can't buy back. Cheryl Conradson 2391 N. Heliotrope Drive Sent from my Pad Salas, Diana From: Pat Coleman <pcoleman6@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 12:14 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Attachments: I Have Questions About 2525.docx Dear Mayor and Councilpersons, Please consider my questions and concerns when addressing item 11A: The project is not respecting the safety and resources of the people of Santa Ana or the laws put in place to protect them - including the laws providing the transparency that enables public participation. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, Patricia Coleman Questions and Concerns with the Project at 2525 Main Street 1.How can City Council approve 2525 when part of the project sits on public parkland? • Why was this use of parkland not clearly disclosed? • I could not find any mention of this encroachment within the development agreement (outside of a blurry Landscape Plan) • Santiago Park (like some other parks in Santa Ana) is under a Land and Water Conservation Grant. Any change of park boundary must be approved at the state and federal level in advance of a land transfer. siws®sWMMV Existing Santiago PoI ark bundary 6' HT. TUBULAR STEEL FENCE RELOCATED TO NEW PARK LIMITS Detail from City Council November 19, 2019 Item 75D Staff Report - Landscape Submittal 1R, submitted November 19, 2019, long after the deadline: https://santaana.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=2&clip id=2542&meta id=103115 2. How can the developer be awarded a non-competitive contract to design, engineer, and build the Santiago Park renovation when his specialty is high density housing developments, not park design or construction? This is in the development agreement. • Park design and construction is a specialty field • The $250,000 Coastal Conservancy grant that the city of Santa Ana was just awarded did so on the strength of Santa Ana's record of competitive contracts • The grant requires information on the qualifications of the contractors and detailed plans, budgets and timelines • How can we be honest and operate in good faith with the Coastal Conservancy and give the work to the 2525 developer? • How will this be viewed in future grant applications? If the developer has twice tried to fold park land into his project, is it wise to allow him to construct both projects at the same time? In the end, will he just be building a fancy greenbelt for his apartments that will be maintained at the public's expense? 3. Why did the new intersection not get a thorough safety study, especially with regards to pedestrian traffic, such as one done in preparation for the Tiny Tim Plaza project? • The increased distance alone decreases visibility and driver awareness of pedestrians (and vice versa). • Pedestrians in the new crosswalk will not be within sight of drivers turning right on red out of the parking lot. • Pedestrians may be tempted to jay walk across the intersection. • City staff conducted a study with a sample size of only one offset intersection. Any good engineering or scientific study would not be considered valid with data that limited. • We can do better than this for pedestrians in Santa Ana. k as - , :;: ■ P Driver's line of sight without obstructions tPalm trees might be a problem, thought The view from just behind the limit line leaving Discovery Cube and turning onto Main Street. Block wall and valve obstructs view of crosswalk Pedestrians within this portion of the crosswalk are not visible to drivers until after they have started turning. Pedestrians enter the crosswalk here, behind (south of) this smaller palm tree. Driver's view is impaired by distance and obstructed by the wall I should not be having to draw line of sight diagrams for the City council. They should have been done professionally for you and look like this: vnnmom� ®n.rarmw m� TINY TIM PLAZA I CITY OF SANTA ANA western D&..y SIDM Dlstance 61h St l nh si soyhern Drrvewoy slgnl phi.- - so�;el sl — - ----------- — 1e,eed rro�mam n.e ____ uemarm cam :<me: r-aD Figure 14 Proposed Project Driveway Sight Distance In past decades, public road projects have been prioritized based on the degree to which they reduced traffic congestion. In that approach, automobile delay minutes are used to measure the level of service and project success. Changes are needed to balance pedestrian safety interests with car travel. We need a focus in Santa Ana that makes maximizing pedestrian safety a priority in every project. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studiesZDocuments/SiRl803.pd 4. Why have effects of side -by -side turn pockets on Main Street not been disclosed, discussed, or thoroughly studied in development documents? • The width of Main Street at this point is 89.22 feet, per ESRI measurement. • The turn pockets do not fit without significant compromises to Main Street. The plan must either: • Widen Main Street to take up 8 feet of the sidewalk in front of Discovery Cube o If this is the plan, has the Discovery Cube agreed to this? o How will the Discovery Cube's emergency exit on Main Street fit when the sidewalk is right up against the building? • Narrow each traffic lane from over 12 feet down to 11.15 feet. o Six lanes of traffic, one turn pocket, and a protective median of one lane width equals a lane width of 11.15 feet. o This narrowing is comparable to the `Road Diet' on Harbor Blvd., south of V Street. o If this is the intention, has the slowing of traffic due to the narrowing of lanes been factored into the traffic flow (LOS) studies? o Reducing lane width and putting a major arterial on a "Road Diet" is barely palatable when the community receives tangible benefits, such as protected bike lanes. o A "Road Diet" on Main Street for the benefit a private development project would not be so well received. o This is especially irritating when the developer did not even provide enough setback on Main Street to allow for future alternative transportation projects or the aligning of Main Street. 5. Why is the Building Setback line along Edgewood only about 12.5 feet? • The text puts it at around 140 feet from Edgewood. • The site plan labels the measurement of 134 "Setback", but • The site plan draws it in about 12.5 feet from Edgewood • At best, this is sloppy and creates confusion • At worst, the Building Setback Line on the site plan could create an unintentional, but potentially lucrative additional entitlement for the developer. Setback Measurement of 134 feet Eastern Building Setback Line -.fr -_•� _��.rnnry= Why Is the southern Building illl[.�� l�l I I I�l�i�� li�'llll��l `�� l�ll�i_�� Setback Line not indicated here? nn ^^r�ppl II ;j II II (II rr Salas, Diana From: Dale Helvig <helvig_denny@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 2:49 PM To: eComment; City Council; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Thai, Minh; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena; Mark Earthlink McLoughlin; Carvalho, Sonia R. Subject: 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council Attachments: 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.pdf Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com December 3, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81h Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: 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, 2) For the reasons stated on the attached pages and those that have been presented to you by other residents, I ask that you deny the second reading approval of Ordinance NO. NS-2979 and Ordinance NO. NS-2980. Both ordinances have several major and minor issues with implications that should be fully understood. In many cases the City is 'leaving money on the table" which it can ill afford to do. Please take a look at some of the comments I made regarding serious concerns I have with the two ordinances. I know other residents will be submitting their valid concerns as well. I do care about all of Santa Ana and that is why I attend more than just issues related to 2525. Show that you care about all communities and exercise the leadership it takes to say no. Not all zoning changes are for the better. I ask that you deny the second reading approval. Respectfully, Q-a4 It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-18: Term of Agreement is listed as four years. It should be 55 years. 2.4 t van, The terra of this Agrcurioni shal i cummerse or dw da:c (I he "Corrunenecrncnt Date-) that is the E:ffeelive Date, grid shalt mlitijijkc far a perriod of. ltatTl4lJO(Ill. unless this tens is acidified err extended pursuant to the provisions al" this Agreariaaril. Thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vc5%d right under this Aureemertt, reprdle» of whether or not OWNER leas paid any Development Impact Fce. Page 11A-19 This penalty is not anywhere near enough to incentivize the applicant to complete the project on time, and the penalty amount will do little to help the City. A penalty at least half the development's projected annual income should be considered. This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks. Extending the construction process will further impact the residents of North Santa Ana due to dust, noise and construction traffic, especially those with property bordering the development. Why settle for less? This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks if it is collected. The City is potentially giving money away. (b) OWNER shall pay to the City Fitly Thousand Dollars (S50,000) to partially compensate the City for the significant lost revenue to be received by the City had the Project been completed. Page 11A-26: Why would the City give them a no bid $1.4 million contract? The applicant should contribute their $700,000 towards the project. There is no low end protection. (b) Santiago Park Improvement Cnnstntetion. At the City's determination, Owner shall manage and construct the Santiago Park Phase 11 Park Improvements ("Part: Impruvetncnts"i tadjcct to review and approval by the City. The Park Improvemcnts shall mclade, hot are not limited to design, engineering, pennining, construction, and installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancement, as dewrihed in nitre dctai � on Exhibit G. The total expenditure for the Park Improvemcnts shall not exceed One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars (SI,400,000) 1"11hase [1 Expenditure-). The State Coastal Conservancy has notttitil the City that it has allocated up to Two Hundred Fitly Thmeand Dollars ($250,000) for the Design of the Park I mprovements. if and when the City receives the funds, in the event that the D7>agn work for the Park Improvemcnts is less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (S250.000), the City at its sole discretion, may make a request Io State CMIStal Conservancy, and if approved by the Agency, the City will apply the excess gran[ funds to construction as pan of the C i ty's cunt ri hui ion to the Park Improvements. Owner shall be responsible for all aspects of the Fork Improvements, Prior to issuance ofpurntits, Gly shall have the nghts to review, approve, anal accept the design and material quality of the Park [ntproaernenis. 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 issitance of final approval of occupancy for the Development. Followuig complesoo of the Pyk lusprovenents. and no 'later than three years fivrn the issuance of a noliec of acceptance of Park ImprovemeiiK. City shall reimhumeOwner an amount equal to filly percent (50%) of the total oast of the Park Improvements, up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-28: There are no specifics as to how this is determined. It's unreasonable for one City official to make this determination. (i ) Lirsitcti access ru onsite amenities in it mmriner to hu detenninc:l by OWNER as reasonably acceptable to Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. Page 11A-28: LED street lighting in Park Santiago is almost completed. Will the applicant be reimbursing the City for the entire project or just cover the remaining 6 percent of the ('-) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing non LED light andlor ftxturc with LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood. project? Page 11A-31: If OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement. They violate the agreement, so we terminate it. How absurd is that! They should be held accountable for correcting the deficiency or pay a fine. id it the Plannmg Convnissirm finds and determines on the bnsta of substanthu evideme iNt OWNFR has not uotn(7lieJ in gtxrd fault x'itll the Lear$ and amdulnas ofthis Agreetnem, the ('nmmisstrnr sYwII prwidex niten slnticctn t10.'NI-;It of such lindlrnzc a-ttin8 forththc naturcaf the pm6lern and the nations, it any, requirmJ by ( NPK r(t cure such prohhan and, where the Prnhlcm ran he aurpi, OWNFR has railed to take such aeuons and ewe such problem within Nay (3U1 da); alter the eliet5ive dale of 3ucit rKAIUC r, in tltl evrra Ikq1 str,.h pn.01Irn1 cannot hcetrr<•d withal such thirty (10i Jay Pcntid but canbc cured within al;mscvthee, lice failed to oirnmenectheactions nece;<sary tocuresuchprnbleriwithin such dtu y 0(li Ja} pc(iod and to J,Iigcnuy prec rd to cti mplete wch actions and true such prubicnl. If OWNF7t fails 20 takr the ntee;$cry cations, the Lpr85t�ttghkp the city �oucfilgi modification or tennination of this Agreement, UWNTR may appeal a Planning Convn.ssion deienn,nation pur.uma t:-, ilui SecLmt h3(dl pursuant to CITY'a rules for eonsiderarion of appeals in eonin� matters then to eilr 1. Norirr nl driailk as pruvidrel undo Smtton 7.3 of this Agreeiumt shall be given +.a o%VT1.I-H print io or eaircornm' with pmcectli ng; antler SmIuln 6,4 aril Soction ii.5. Page 11A-55: Has this been approved by all impacted utilities (SCE, Cable, Verizon, ATT, etc.)? UI ILI PIES 15 Undergrounding of Utilities. All utility scrvicc lines shall be underground. This includes all existutg above ground u tres (hat cross over the property that tied adlacent properties. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 Page 11A-76: Why are minimum setbacks listed "...between property line and building..." except for South setback? If a lot line adjustment is being made to allow the property to be purchased by the Discovery Science Foundation, is the applicant being allowed to build right up to the revised property line? SECTION 10 — Setback standards in Specific Development No. 93 (a) North setback. A minimum building setback of ten (10) ful shall be provided between I e pi[ mpertTine and buildings along 5anliago Park. (h) South setback. A minimum building setback of one hundred thirty-four (134) feet shall be provided from Edgewood Road. (e) West setback. A minimum building setback of twelve (l2) feel shall be provided between the properly line and buildings along Main Street, (d) East setback. A minimum building setback of ninety (90) feet shall be provided etwecn t e east property line and buildings. Page 11A-78: Emergency access on Edgewood. In the Myth vs Reality handout the applicant provided at the November 1911 City Council meeting, Myth #3 states "All Palm Trees On Edgewood Remain". This is not possible if item (c) below is implemented per the plan drawings. (cl I7u Emergency Vehicular Access Lai4c (Fire Laic) with access to Edgcwood Road shall he bated per Orange C,gunty Fire Authority and City Public Works Agency requirements and standards. The emcrgetiucy lane shall not be used ltr trash staging, trash loading audier nuuve-ituvouts. No other vehicular access ur curb approach openings will be approved on Edgawood Road for the project, Page 11A-78: Each unit will have a patio or balcony that will be a minimum of 50 square feet. This is not correct per the most recently submitted plan which shows 46 units without a patio or balcony. W Private Open Space. Each residential unit shall have a palio or balcony a minimum of Sp square feet in size. Page 11A-78: Only eight units have a designated storage area in their unit (Floor Plans A8, A8-ALT and B2). Where are storage units for the remaining 248 units? (d) Suirasw A minimum of M cubic fbot of storage, in aui<Won to interior bedroom closets, shall be provided with minimum dimeasions aP4 feud by 8 feat per uaiL ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 Page 11A-85: Engineering mistakes can occur. Just look at what happened at the Lincoln/Fairhaven railroad crossing. The road was permanently closed due to a poor plan. The changes proposed on Main St. need more than a paint drawing to show that it is feasible. Look for yourself... There is insufficient space to allow their proposal to succeed. p There are no patios on floor Plan S1.1 Floor Plan A8, A8-ALT and B2 have designated storage areas (3 percent or 8 Units) NUM ro oa Reduction Units So Ft per Unit Patio Area STUDIO 74 29.91% 51 24 552 1420$ 53 51.1 46 556 25576 0 52 4 559 2236 SO ONE Bedroom 103 40.23% Al 40 634 25360 58 A2 21 79G 16116 66 A6 25 633 15825 55 A6.1 4 804 3216 55 A6•ALT 4 795 3180 55 1 866 866 57 3 930 2790 57 A10 3 721 2163 64 Al2 2 863 1726 69 TWO Bedroom 75 29% 01 25 1148 28700 G6 4 1005 4020 59 B6 5 1112 1132 14 B6-ALT 3 1179 3517 74 87 30 909 27270 G1 B7.1 2 1022 2044 61 08 4 6 1012 1 033 4048 61 6198 MISSING B9 iH REE Bedroom 4 2% cl 4 1 1362 1 544$ 1 67 Numner of Floor Flans: 21 256 1 1 196,259 ONLY 3 PERCENT (8 UNITS) HAVE A DESIGNATED STORAGE AREA FLOOR PLANS A8, A8-ALT AND 132 PATgF.LAf znw ec FFI I� 11uT lu' I fS YKE 4 ttb P AL'M IC a — u U IiiF UNIT A$ 1 wtlfCGA- t BL1M UNIT AREA W SO FT PATIOIBALC. 575O. FT PAIIGflµC µb.T rIL�Yh'l �u ItY aiy L ' !, MIT A-0 ALT 1 pEarCY- I IY1N UNIT AfLA. 9]Q ip Ft PATIOAIALC it SO FT WTW :ecwcc..,tw "ITMEA IO 80 FT PAT4PSALCLV 55g " NO PATIOS FOR 46 UNITS UNIT SI I ST"b 16Am UNIT AREA. 6W SQ FT PATIaM0014t A 10 cc: citycoundI ansanta-ana.org eCom ments@santa-ana.org 11 Kristine Ridge City Manager, Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho City Attorney, Santa Ana Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Vince Fregoso, Manager, Planning Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chair, Planning Commission 12 Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com December 3, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: 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, 2) For the reasons stated on the attached pages and those that have been presented to you by other residents, I ask that you deny the second reading approval of Ordinance NO. NS-2979 and Ordinance NO. NS-2980. Both ordinances have several major and minor issues with implications that should be fully understood. In many cases the City is "leaving money on the table" which it can ill afford to do. Please take a look at some of the comments I made regarding serious concerns I have with the two ordinances. I know other residents will be submitting their valid concerns as well. I do care about all of Santa Ana and that is why I attend more than just issues related to 2525. Show that you care about all communities and exercise the leadership it takes to say no. Not all zoning changes are for the better. I ask that you deny the second reading approval. Respectfully, U-a 4 It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) Page 1 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.docz Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-18: Term of Agreement is listed as four years. It should be 55 years. 2.4 t lJn the term of ihis Agrrcmatl shall commence on the date (the "COrID[tenCernent Date"I that is the Erfective D41e,4' lour (4) years t(dripocr. unless this terra is modified or extended pursuant to the provis;ons of ihis ALM11reil thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vcsicd right under this Agreemeni- regardless of uhelher of run OWNER has paid uny Irvrlolvnrru Impact o'er Page 11A-19 This penalty is not anywhere near enough to incentivize the applicant to complete the project on time, and the penalty amount will do little to help the City. A penalty at least half the development's projected annual income should be considered. This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks. Extending the construction process will further impact the residents of North Santa Ana due to dust, noise and construction traffic, especially those with property bordering the development. Why settle for less? This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks if it is collected, The City is potentially giving money away. 1W OWNFR shall pay to the City Fitly Thousand Dollars (S'4),0001 to partially compensate the City for the- significant lost revenue to be received by the City had the Project been completed. Page 11A-26: Why would the City give them a no bid $1.4 million contract? The applicant should contribute their $700,000 towards the project. There is no low end protection. (bl Santiago Park Improvemennl Construction. At the C'ity's dctcrrmttation. owns shall manage and cnratruct the Santiago Park Phase Il Park Improvements ("Park Improvements") subject to review and approval by the City, the Park Improvements shall mchide. but are not limited in design. engineering. Permitting, eniw!nrction. acsl installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail "haisecment, as described in more detai. nn Exhibit G- The total expenditure for the Park Improvements shall not exceed Cync Million Four Hundred -rhousand Dollars (SI.400,000) ("Phase 11 Exponduurc`). •fhc State Coasial Conservancy has 11mirled the Coy that it has allocated up to Two Hundred Fifty Thotuand Dollars 0250,000) for the Design of the Park I mprovemcnrs, If and when the City receive; the funds, in the eveia that the Design waif: for the Park Improvements is less than Two Hundred Fitly Thousand Dollars (5250,1R)Oi, the City at its sole discretion, may make a request to State Cmslal Conservancy, and ;f approved bry ilic ,4geri y, the City will apply the excess grant funds to co"Mriletion as Pan of thcCity's contribution to the Park Improvements. Ownushallberesimnsibk for all Aspects of the Pork.Imprcwemmits; Prior nr issuarcl. of permi[s, C'iiy steal I have the nghU to mvirw, approve•, and accept the dcsien and mwertal qualoq of [he Park linpinvemews. Owner shall complete the Park Improvemems to a timely Gshion, by the earlier of 36 months following issuance by the City the first building permit for the construction of the Developm m, or prior to issuance of final approval of occupancy, for the Deveiopmem- Followiiqp cunrdefor::,: the Park lr :pruv'eluenCt. and no Ater than three %cars from the issuance of a nonce of acceptant u[ Park I mprovemew- City shall retimhurse 0wner an amount egtral10 fifty percent.(50%1 of the total cost of the Park improvements, up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars Page 2 of 8 . - 2019-12-03 Letter to City Councll.dom Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 heivig_denny@msn.com ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-28: There are no specifics as to how this is determined. Its -It's unreasonable for one City official to make this determination. (1 11 I.imneq access to truite amenities in a manner to be determined by OWNER as reasonably acceptable to Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. Page 11A-28: LED street lighting in Park Santiago is almost completed. Will the applicant be reimbursing the City for the entire project orjust cover the remaining 6 percent of the project? (2) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing nun LED light arullor fixturcwith LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood. Page 13A-31: If OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement. They violate the agreement, so we terminate it. How absurd is that! They should be held accountable for correcting the deficiency or pay a fine. fall If the Planning Commission finds ;end deaesmrnei on dic htisis of sub6taolinl evidence that (J WNFR has not complied in gmid fouk wwith rho tenust and anulidLms uftllis Agreenwrr, the Coinnussmn shaI I provide w alien 0 nuceto OWN FR ni such lind mg s setang fort h the nature n f the problem and the notions, if nny, required by OWNER to litre such prnhlran and, what the problem can be cured, OWNFR hss railed io Late such aching Hoot cure such probleri within Thirty (Mh days alter the effiwivt dale of such notice LIT, In TILL event IJctl smh ptablern cannot bUCIITCLl whlvn such thirty i 11)1 day penal but can be cured within a Ionw, umc, has rw loci to continence the actims nc=sory to cures acli probiont within such luny OQJ du) poiud and w JJiean.y pI, c"vd to wmltx1csuoh aetions;ntd anc,,ueh probi Lill. '({� 171y7y(R1ils to tnkc the reeasary actiuns, the E'onaa ssma Rbiyr-tecmnmand milififitsotim or Lwitinatiml of the Agmemem. UW'NER may appeal. a Planning Corrvxassion deremrinatiott pursuant w ilus SecL_on 6. 3(df pursuant to Crn-% rules tier eonsideratinn of appeals In mnmL; nrauers then in el leer Nonce nl Jef'aul: as innvidal undo Scauun 7 3 tit this Agreement slyotl he (Liven In t!W'NFR priarrn to cur-curnnl w ¢h pntecedirys under S.cunn h.a and Sni'tlnnfi3 Page 13A-SS: Has this been approved by all impacted utilities (SCE, Cable, Verizon, ATT, etc.)? Ur}urfES 25. Undergrounding of Utilities. All utility service lines shall be underground. This includes all existinu above groumi wires that cross over the property that teed adjacent properties. Page 3 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.de a Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 Page 11A-76: Why are minimum setbacks listed "...between property line and building..." except for South setback? If a lot line adjustment is being made to allow the property to be purchased by the Discovery Science Foundation, is the applicant being allowed to build right up to the revised property line? FECTION 10 — Setback standards in Suetifrc Development No. 93 (a) North setback. A minimum building setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided between t le property the and buildings along Santiago Park, (h) South setback. A minimum building setback ofone hundred thirty-four (134) feet shall be provided from Edgewood Road. (c) West setback. A minimum building setback of twelve (L2) feet shall be provided ween the property line and buildings along Main Street. (d) East sethack. A minimum building setback of ninety (90) feet shall he provided etwe�en a to east property line and buildings, Page 11A-78: Emergency access on Edgewood. In the Myth vs Reality handout the applicant provided at the November 19th City Council meeting, Myth #3 states "All Palm Trees On Edgewood Remain". This is not possible if item (c) below is implemented per the plan drawings. (ci The Emergency Vchicular Access Lane (pirc Late) wide access to Edgmurxl Read shall he gaied per Oraugc County Fire Authority and City Public Worlo Agen4y requirements and standards. The cptergencv lane sSail not he used i.rr crash staging, trash loading author nruve-it&outs. No other vehicular acu ,�s or curb approach openings will be approved on Edgcwood Road for the project. Page 13A-78: Each unit will have a patio or balcony that will be a minimum of 50 square feet. This is not correct per the most recently submitted plan which shows 46 units without a patio or balcony. (c) Private Open Space. Each residential .unit shall have a patio of balcony a minimum or 50 square feet in sim. Page 11A-78: Only eight units have a designated storage area in their unit (Floor Plans A8, A8-ALT and 82). Where are storage units for the remaining 248 units? (d) 5twage. A minimum of 250 cubic feet of storage, in addition lu interiur bedrtxim elosas, €hallbe provided w!(h rtiiaimrall dimettsiuns of feet by R feeL per unit_ Page 4 of 8 , 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.doa Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com I'M INTRr•».ra►EIM-01 Page 11A-85: Engineering mistakes can occur. Just look at what happened at the Lincoln/Fairhaven railroad crossing. The road was permanently closed due to a poor plan. The changes proposed on Main St. need more than a paint drawing to show that it is feasible. Look for yourself... There is insufficient space to allow their proposal to succeed. Page 5 of 8 , - 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.docx Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com There are no patios on floor Plan S1.1 Floor Plan A8, A8-ALT and B2 have designated storage areas (3 percent or 8 Units) um ro I Reduction flniss Sq Ft. per Unit F'atio Area STUDIO 74 28.91% 51 24 592 14208 53 51.1 46 556 25576 52 4 555 2236 50 ONE Bedroom 103 4023% Al 40 634 25360 58 A2 21 7 5 G 16716 66 A6 25 633 15825 SS A6.1 4 804 3216 55 A6-ALT 4 795 3180 55 1 866 866 57 3 930 2790 57 A10 3 721 2161 64 Al2 2 863 1726 69 TWO Bedroom 75 29% Bl 25 1148 28100 66 82,,._ 4 1005 4020 59 B6 1 1132 1132 74 B6-ALT 3 1179 3537 74 B7 30 900 27270 61 B71 2 1022 2044 61 08 4 6 1012 1033 4048 61 6198 MISSING B9 THREE Bedroom 4 2% cl A 1 1362 15443 G7 Number a! Floor Plans: 21 256 196,259 Page 6 of 8 . - 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.dou Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ONLY 3 PERCENT (8 UNITS) HAVE A DESIGNATED STORAGE AREA FLOOR PLANS A8, A8-ALT AND B2 - PAeQ'BgLC ❑ — _ StOR � k-0'XT-Y PAT C. ❑ � Ski I I'-0%6d ❑ �� 9P UNIT A-8 t BMRW -I BATH UNIT AREA 866 SO. FT PATIO/BALL 51 SO_ FT. UNIT B2 2BEOflWM-J"p UNITAREA: JMSO.PT, PATIOIBALCONY. 59 SO. PT, UNIT A-e ALT_ I BmRPoM-I m. UNIT AREA 930 SO. PT. PATIOMALC: W SO. F Page 7 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.dea Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com NO PATIOS FOR 46 UNITS UNIT Sl 1 SN010-1 BA" UNIT AREA= 556 SO. Ff. 0ATIO%6ALCOkY: q cc: citycounciIOsanta-ana.org eComments@santa-ana.org Kristine Ridge City Manager, Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho City Attorney, Santa Ana Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Vince Fregoso, Manager, Planning Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chair, Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.docx Salas, Diana From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 3:11 PM To: Pulido, Miguel; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Solorio, Jose; Penaloza, David; Iglesias, Cecilia; Bacerra, Phil Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; eComment Subject: Items 11 A (1) and (2) Consent Calendar (Second Reading Ordinances 2525 North Main Street) City Council Meeting Tuesday 12-3-2019 Attachments: Development Agreemt Concerns 12-3-2019.docx Greetings Mayor Pulido and Council members,f piLi As your constituent and a Santa Ana voter, I object to the inclusion of Items 11A (1) and (2) in the Consent Calendar on the December 3, 2019 Council agenda.l I also object to the final adoption of these ordinances by Council on second reading without further informed discussion. The Consent Calendar should be reserved for "routine" items that can appropriately be enacted by one motion without discussion. With due respect, that is obviously not the case here. The final votes on adoption of the Development Agreement and Zoning Amendment for 2525 North Main Street are clearly not routine and must not be enacted by a single motion without further discussion. Therefore, I request that Council pull the two ordinances in 11A from the consent calendar for further discussion before voting, Before you decide, give the City Staff and City Attorney another opportunity to review the concerns presented to you in the enclosed "Development Agreement Concerns" document. Reconvene in January 2020 to make a final informed decision My neighbors have summarized their concerns about the Development Agreement in a single document and presented this list of their concerns to you. The "Development Agreement Concerns" document is part of the record you are considering. I have enclosed a copy with this letter. As my neighbors have said in the first two paragraphs on the first page, "(g)iven the constant plan evolution and staff work -load, the neighbors have discovered a number of issues/problems with the development agreement. The Development Agreement along with legal objections made by the Association's attorney and other attorneys who objected should be evaluated during a one -month deferral. The City Attorney and Planning Director should be given an opportunity to clean up a number of problems/ambiguities in the document and staff would have an opportunity to obtain meaningful concessions for the City that appear to have been overlooked. A summary of major and minor deficiencies/problems with the development agreement follows. Issues perceived as major or where the City is not receiving a fair deal have been highlighted in bold." Let the voters decide. Send the ordinances to a City Wide referendum and election. If you are truly concerned that those of us speaking against this project do not represent the will of your constituents and best interests of the greater community of Santa Ana, send these ordinances to the voters. Put these ordinances on the ballot in a special or general election referendum. Don't burden your constituents with the enormous responsibility of sending these ordinances to a City wide vote. if you still have doubts about what our community supports, take the initiative to let the voters all across the City decide this controversial issue. Let the majority of the voters of Santa Ana decide whether to build this project. Alternatively, I request that tonight those of you who supported the project on November 19, 2019 reconsider and oppose rather than adopt these two ordinances. There is ample evidence in the record to do so. If you carefully review the information presented at the last City Council Meeting on November 19, 2019, 1 believe you must conclude that both ordinances rest on a deeply flawed and incomplete Environmental Impact Report ((EIR) No. 2018-01.) The Development Agreement you are voting on tonight becomes null and void if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that the Environmental Impact Report is invalid for any reason or it otherwise does not go into effect. (Section 5, para. 2, page 8 of 10, Ordinance NS-2979. ) Finally, both the proposed Development Agreement and the Zoning Amendment adversely affect and conflict with the City's General Plan, even as amended per Amendment No. 2018-06 and Amendment Application No. 2018-10. Thank you for your service to our City. Respectfully; sE' sE,',' Mrs. Ellen Koldewey:Eo+ Santa Ana CA 92706 1 IIA ORDINANCE SECOND READING: APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 201 SA1 WITH AC 2525 MAIN, LLC AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 201 MI TO ESTABLISH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) FOR 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 21— Planing and Building Agency Placed on first reading at the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting and approved by a vote of 4-3 (Bacerm, Pulido and Villegas dissented). Published in the Orange County Reporter on November 22, 2019. EECOMMENDED ACTION.. Place ordinances on second reading and adopt. 1. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979-AN ORDINANCE OF THE CTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 201801 BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATE➢AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WITHIN THE CFIV OF SANTA ANA PUMUANTTOCALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTCOOESEMON 65864, ET SEC. 2. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2960-AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITYCOUNOLAPPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERLY 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. 93ISM3) FOR SAID PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNS: Given the constant plan evolution and staff work -load, the neighbors have discovered a number of issues/problems with the development agreement. The development agreement along with legal objections made by the Association's attorney and other attorneys who objected should be evaluated during a one -month. deferral. The City Attorney and Planning Director should be given an opportunity to clean up a number of problems/ambiguities in the document and staff would have an opportunity to obtain meaningful concessions for the City that appear to have been overlooked. A summary of major and minor deficiencies/problems with the development agreement follows. Issues perceived as major or where the City is not receiving a fair deal have been highlighted in bold. Section 2.2: The agreement is with the ownership. However, the present lender has a senior real property interest. Therefore, the City should consider having the lender subordinate its interest in the property (agree to comply with the agreement). ***Section 2.4/2.4.1: The term of the agreement is 4 years from adoption of the ordinance. The City Manager may agree to two (2) additional one (1) year extensions. Unclear if the developer is required to pay $50,000 per one (1) year extension or $100,000 in total. The amount for an extension is unreasonable and should be increased commensurate with the actual loss of purported income the project would generate (substantial amount of lost revenue/walking away from money on the table). 2.5.1: This provision allows the developer to sell the property provided the new buyer agrees to comply with its terms. The agreement should also bind any lender/holder of a senior interest in the property. Per Section 2.5.1, the assignment only binds a "purchaser, transferee, or assignee". This should be modified to encompass a lender. Section 9 attempts to resolve this agreement by clarifying that a lender who forecloses is bound. However, as the present lender has not signed the agreement and a future lender is not being asked to subordinate its interest, it is unclear whether Section 9 saves the City. ***2.5.5: This provision provides that the agreement terminates upon sale or lease of any subdivided lot to a member of the public or final user. This would be appropriate if the property were being subdivided for sale to individual parties. Not appropriate in this instance and creates a significant ambiguity given that the property will be subdivided to accommodate the sale of a portion of the property to the museum. Section 2.7: The agreement is deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of expiration of the term in Section 2.4 which is 4 years. However, there are provisions that are intended to carry on for significantly longer periods of time (e.g., 55 years for security patrol). Section 3.1: Rights to develop are vested and development remains subject to land use regulations and development approvals. Should clarify that such regulations would preclude alternative uses of the portion of the subdivided parcel being conveyed to the museum. ***Section 3.3.1(d) provides that no "Development Exactions" may be applied against developer to the development of the property unless agreed to by owner. The problem with this provision is that the definition of "Development Exaction" is too broad and includes "...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 interest." The definition should provide greater specificity and reserve to the City the ability to impose other exactions if additional impacts are indicated during building plan review. ***Section IS: Provides timing for development and allows the developer to build "at such times and in as many development phases and sub -phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole business judgement." The problem this creates is that the developer could demolish the Wells Fargo site and leave a large landfill until the next phase. Greater specificity on development phasing should be provided. Section 3.6.1: City Attorney required to approve developer's CCRs. City Charter does not appear to provide the City Attorney with authority to approve such third party documents. ***Section 3.6.3: If City Attorney fails to respond within 30 days, the City will have been deemed to have approved the CCRs. This is extraordinarily uncommon given work -flow in the City (e.g., what happens if the City Attorney is absent, on vacation, or if it is lost in the mail.). Governments rarely allow for defacto approval due to a non -response. ***Section 4.2.1: Suggest that public art section be consolidated with a requirement for a pedestrian bridge crossing Main Street. No metrics given for evaluating how 0.5% of the project's value are given. No requirement for City "approval" of the art plan. ***Section 4.2.1(b): Santiago Park Improvement text is extremely confusing. Owner may be required to manage and construct Santiago Park Phase II Public Improvements subject to review and approval by the "City." The agreement defines the term "City" and "City Council" differently. Who approves the budget and management plan? No requirement for a minimum spend by the developer, only that the project cost will not exceed 1.4 million. No provision for a payout of $700k to the extent City decides to construct improvements on its own. No provision for how the City will "pay back" 700k (e.g., will this be credited against impact fees)? No appraisal process for value of developer work. This is another example of the City leaving money on the table. Has City determined whether the developer's work on the park is a public project and will prevailing wage be paid? ***Section 4.2.1(c) No parameters given to guide decision - making for limited access to Park Santiago neighbors to onsite amenities. Potentially discriminatory against other residents. Section 4.3.2: Specifies timing for impact fee payment. Confusing clause states, "No fees shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement...." What permits is this Section referring to? Appears to be remnant text from boiler plate but creates ambiguity. ***Section 4.3.3: This Section provides for the issuance of fee credits to the developer. No metric given for how the credits will be calculated/how the developer's conveyance of public land or park improvements will be valued. This is another example of the City potentially leaving money on the table. Why would the developer get fee credits for right of way dedications necessitated by the project? Section 4.6: Park access easement to be given by developer. Approval for the easement appears to be by the City and not City Council. Receipt and acceptance of an easement would require City Council approval. Salas, Diana From: dibtiles < Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 12:09 PM To: eComment Subject: OPPOSITION: 2525 Main Street development I have been following this development and feel the neighborhoods impacted provide much good for the city of Santa Ana. I don't think this developer has a desire to enhance life in Santa Ana and does not care out its diverse neighborhoods. The planned development is too large for the space it has to develop. Added vehicular traffic in the already busy corridor is not welcome either. Please help save Santa Ana and revoke this developers approved development plan. David Ballantyne Salas, Diana From: shelley cantin <shelleycantin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 12:24 PM To: eComment Cc: shelley cantin Subject: Zoning and Health Hello to those who will read and listen! I object - strenuously - to this proposal. This issue is being pushed through by those seeking to benefit from this development. The community vastly supports opposing this intrusive structure and the lack of a fully vetted infrastructure. This impacts the community in a wide variety of ways including health concerns. We have a rampant homeless situation let's tackle those health issues first. Regards, Shelley Cantin Floral Park Resident Native Californian "A condition of complete simplicity costing no less than everything" Salas, Diana From: Julie Lake <jaslake@me.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 1:45 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Development We do NOT support this development. We've been in Floral Park 33 years and have watched as Park Santiago turned from mediocre to excellent due to the hard work and investments made to the properties. Please think of the residents of Park Santiago, one of the historic neighborhood gems of Santa Ana, before a developer who just wants to make money. We in Floral Park will also be negatively impacted by this project in terms of traffic on our already crowded streets. There are already condo developments GALORE on Memory Lane and Town & Country and there are plans to build all around Main Place mall, why do we need to wreck a great neighborhood with yet another? This is Santa Ana's chance to develop this property more along the lines of cultural attractions, building on the proximity to Bowers and the Cube. We want to be thought of as a fun place to visit and shop, not just the place where all the homeless are dumped. Please do what's best for Santa Ana, not what crooked politicians in Santa Ana and Sacramento think is the best way to line their pockets. Sincerely, Chuck and Julie Lake 2028 Greenleaf Street Santa Ana Salas, Diana From: Rachel Wilson <rachelwilson@wilsongreens.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 10:07 PM To: eComment Subject: Opposition 2525 Main Development We oppose the development on 2525 Main. Regards, Rachel & Joe Wilson Floral Park Residents Get Outlook for iOS Salas, Diana From: Michael Conradson <mikeconradson@me.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019 3:30 PM To: eComment Subject: Disappointed I am grateful for the Council members that saw the issue from the neighbors side that will have to endure the future problems of this development. Thank you. I felt betrayed by Cecilia and others. Bribery isn't the way to make decisions for our future in Santa Ana. How can you not see the congestion that future apartments will make on this lovely neighborhood. Santa Ana used to have charm. No longer. You were bought and disappointed many, many home owners. You lost respect and that you can't buy back. Cheryl Conradson 2391 N. Heliotrope Drive Sent from my Pad Salas, Diana From: Pat Coleman <pcoleman6@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 12:14 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main Street Attachments: I Have Questions About 2525.docx Dear Mayor and Councilpersons, Please consider my questions and concerns when addressing item 11A: The project is not respecting the safety and resources of the people of Santa Ana or the laws put in place to protect them - including the laws providing the transparency that enables public participation. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, Patricia Coleman Questions and Concerns with the Project at 2525 Main Street 1.How can City Council approve 2525 when part of the project sits on public parkland? • Why was this use of parkland not clearly disclosed? • I could not find any mention of this encroachment within the development agreement (outside of a blurry Landscape Plan) • Santiago Park (like some other parks in Santa Ana) is under a Land and Water Conservation Grant. Any change of park boundary must be approved at the state and federal level in advance of a land transfer. siws®sWMMV Existing Santiago PoI ark bundary 6' HT. TUBULAR STEEL FENCE RELOCATED TO NEW PARK LIMITS Detail from City Council November 19, 2019 Item 75D Staff Report - Landscape Submittal 1R, submitted November 19, 2019, long after the deadline: https://santaana.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=2&clip id=2542&meta id=103115 2. How can the developer be awarded a non-competitive contract to design, engineer, and build the Santiago Park renovation when his specialty is high density housing developments, not park design or construction? This is in the development agreement. • Park design and construction is a specialty field • The $250,000 Coastal Conservancy grant that the city of Santa Ana was just awarded did so on the strength of Santa Ana's record of competitive contracts • The grant requires information on the qualifications of the contractors and detailed plans, budgets and timelines • How can we be honest and operate in good faith with the Coastal Conservancy and give the work to the 2525 developer? • How will this be viewed in future grant applications? If the developer has twice tried to fold park land into his project, is it wise to allow him to construct both projects at the same time? In the end, will he just be building a fancy greenbelt for his apartments that will be maintained at the public's expense? 3. Why did the new intersection not get a thorough safety study, especially with regards to pedestrian traffic, such as one done in preparation for the Tiny Tim Plaza project? • The increased distance alone decreases visibility and driver awareness of pedestrians (and vice versa). • Pedestrians in the new crosswalk will not be within sight of drivers turning right on red out of the parking lot. • Pedestrians may be tempted to jay walk across the intersection. • City staff conducted a study with a sample size of only one offset intersection. Any good engineering or scientific study would not be considered valid with data that limited. • We can do better than this for pedestrians in Santa Ana. k as - , :;: ■ P Driver's line of sight without obstructions tPalm trees might be a problem, thought The view from just behind the limit line leaving Discovery Cube and turning onto Main Street. Block wall and valve obstructs view of crosswalk Pedestrians within this portion of the crosswalk are not visible to drivers until after they have started turning. Pedestrians enter the crosswalk here, behind (south of) this smaller palm tree. Driver's view is impaired by distance and obstructed by the wall I should not be having to draw line of sight diagrams for the City council. They should have been done professionally for you and look like this: vnnmom� ®n.rarmw m� TINY TIM PLAZA I CITY OF SANTA ANA western D&..y SIDM Dlstance 61h St l nh si soyhern Drrvewoy slgnl phi.- - so�;el sl — - ----------- — 1e,eed rro�mam n.e ____ uemarm cam :<me: r-aD Figure 14 Proposed Project Driveway Sight Distance In past decades, public road projects have been prioritized based on the degree to which they reduced traffic congestion. In that approach, automobile delay minutes are used to measure the level of service and project success. Changes are needed to balance pedestrian safety interests with car travel. We need a focus in Santa Ana that makes maximizing pedestrian safety a priority in every project. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studiesZDocuments/SiRl803.pd 4. Why have effects of side -by -side turn pockets on Main Street not been disclosed, discussed, or thoroughly studied in development documents? • The width of Main Street at this point is 89.22 feet, per ESRI measurement. • The turn pockets do not fit without significant compromises to Main Street. The plan must either: • Widen Main Street to take up 8 feet of the sidewalk in front of Discovery Cube o If this is the plan, has the Discovery Cube agreed to this? o How will the Discovery Cube's emergency exit on Main Street fit when the sidewalk is right up against the building? • Narrow each traffic lane from over 12 feet down to 11.15 feet. o Six lanes of traffic, one turn pocket, and a protective median of one lane width equals a lane width of 11.15 feet. o This narrowing is comparable to the `Road Diet' on Harbor Blvd., south of V Street. o If this is the intention, has the slowing of traffic due to the narrowing of lanes been factored into the traffic flow (LOS) studies? o Reducing lane width and putting a major arterial on a "Road Diet" is barely palatable when the community receives tangible benefits, such as protected bike lanes. o A "Road Diet" on Main Street for the benefit a private development project would not be so well received. o This is especially irritating when the developer did not even provide enough setback on Main Street to allow for future alternative transportation projects or the aligning of Main Street. 5. Why is the Building Setback line along Edgewood only about 12.5 feet? • The text puts it at around 140 feet from Edgewood. • The site plan labels the measurement of 134 "Setback", but • The site plan draws it in about 12.5 feet from Edgewood • At best, this is sloppy and creates confusion • At worst, the Building Setback Line on the site plan could create an unintentional, but potentially lucrative additional entitlement for the developer. Setback Measurement of 134 feet Eastern Building Setback Line -.fr -_•� _��.rnnry= Why Is the southern Building illl[.�� l�l I I I�l�i�� li�'llll��l `�� l�ll�i_�� Setback Line not indicated here? nn ^^r�ppl II ;j II II (II rr Salas, Diana From: Dale Helvig <helvig_denny@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 2:49 PM To: eComment; City Council; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Villegas, Juan; Iglesias, Cecilia Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Thai, Minh; Fregoso, Vince; Kelaher, Selena; Mark Earthlink McLoughlin; Carvalho, Sonia R. Subject: 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council Attachments: 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.pdf Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com December 3, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81h Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: 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, 2) For the reasons stated on the attached pages and those that have been presented to you by other residents, I ask that you deny the second reading approval of Ordinance NO. NS-2979 and Ordinance NO. NS-2980. Both ordinances have several major and minor issues with implications that should be fully understood. In many cases the City is 'leaving money on the table" which it can ill afford to do. Please take a look at some of the comments I made regarding serious concerns I have with the two ordinances. I know other residents will be submitting their valid concerns as well. I do care about all of Santa Ana and that is why I attend more than just issues related to 2525. Show that you care about all communities and exercise the leadership it takes to say no. Not all zoning changes are for the better. I ask that you deny the second reading approval. Respectfully, Q-a4 It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-18: Term of Agreement is listed as four years. It should be 55 years. 2.4 t van, The terra of this Agrcurioni shal i cummerse or dw da:c (I he "Corrunenecrncnt Date-) that is the E:ffeelive Date, grid shalt mlitijijkc far a perriod of. ltatTl4lJO(Ill. unless this tens is acidified err extended pursuant to the provisions al" this Agreariaaril. Thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vc5%d right under this Aureemertt, reprdle» of whether or not OWNER leas paid any Development Impact Fce. Page 11A-19 This penalty is not anywhere near enough to incentivize the applicant to complete the project on time, and the penalty amount will do little to help the City. A penalty at least half the development's projected annual income should be considered. This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks. Extending the construction process will further impact the residents of North Santa Ana due to dust, noise and construction traffic, especially those with property bordering the development. Why settle for less? This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks if it is collected. The City is potentially giving money away. (b) OWNER shall pay to the City Fitly Thousand Dollars (S50,000) to partially compensate the City for the significant lost revenue to be received by the City had the Project been completed. Page 11A-26: Why would the City give them a no bid $1.4 million contract? The applicant should contribute their $700,000 towards the project. There is no low end protection. (b) Santiago Park Improvement Cnnstntetion. At the City's determination, Owner shall manage and construct the Santiago Park Phase 11 Park Improvements ("Part: Impruvetncnts"i tadjcct to review and approval by the City. The Park Improvemcnts shall mclade, hot are not limited to design, engineering, pennining, construction, and installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail enhancement, as dewrihed in nitre dctai � on Exhibit G. The total expenditure for the Park Improvemcnts shall not exceed One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars (SI,400,000) 1"11hase [1 Expenditure-). The State Coastal Conservancy has notttitil the City that it has allocated up to Two Hundred Fitly Thmeand Dollars ($250,000) for the Design of the Park I mprovements. if and when the City receives the funds, in the event that the D7>agn work for the Park Improvemcnts is less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars (S250.000), the City at its sole discretion, may make a request Io State CMIStal Conservancy, and if approved by the Agency, the City will apply the excess gran[ funds to construction as pan of the C i ty's cunt ri hui ion to the Park Improvements. Owner shall be responsible for all aspects of the Fork Improvements, Prior to issuance ofpurntits, Gly shall have the nghts to review, approve, anal accept the design and material quality of the Park [ntproaernenis. 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 issitance of final approval of occupancy for the Development. Followuig complesoo of the Pyk lusprovenents. and no 'later than three years fivrn the issuance of a noliec of acceptance of Park ImprovemeiiK. City shall reimhumeOwner an amount equal to filly percent (50%) of the total oast of the Park Improvements, up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-28: There are no specifics as to how this is determined. It's unreasonable for one City official to make this determination. (i ) Lirsitcti access ru onsite amenities in it mmriner to hu detenninc:l by OWNER as reasonably acceptable to Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. Page 11A-28: LED street lighting in Park Santiago is almost completed. Will the applicant be reimbursing the City for the entire project or just cover the remaining 6 percent of the ('-) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing non LED light andlor ftxturc with LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood. project? Page 11A-31: If OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement. They violate the agreement, so we terminate it. How absurd is that! They should be held accountable for correcting the deficiency or pay a fine. id it the Plannmg Convnissirm finds and determines on the bnsta of substanthu evideme iNt OWNFR has not uotn(7lieJ in gtxrd fault x'itll the Lear$ and amdulnas ofthis Agreetnem, the ('nmmisstrnr sYwII prwidex niten slnticctn t10.'NI-;It of such lindlrnzc a-ttin8 forththc naturcaf the pm6lern and the nations, it any, requirmJ by ( NPK r(t cure such prohhan and, where the Prnhlcm ran he aurpi, OWNFR has railed to take such aeuons and ewe such problem within Nay (3U1 da); alter the eliet5ive dale of 3ucit rKAIUC r, in tltl evrra Ikq1 str,.h pn.01Irn1 cannot hcetrr<•d withal such thirty (10i Jay Pcntid but canbc cured within al;mscvthee, lice failed to oirnmenectheactions nece;<sary tocuresuchprnbleriwithin such dtu y 0(li Ja} pc(iod and to J,Iigcnuy prec rd to cti mplete wch actions and true such prubicnl. If OWNF7t fails 20 takr the ntee;$cry cations, the Lpr85t�ttghkp the city �oucfilgi modification or tennination of this Agreement, UWNTR may appeal a Planning Convn.ssion deienn,nation pur.uma t:-, ilui SecLmt h3(dl pursuant to CITY'a rules for eonsiderarion of appeals in eonin� matters then to eilr 1. Norirr nl driailk as pruvidrel undo Smtton 7.3 of this Agreeiumt shall be given +.a o%VT1.I-H print io or eaircornm' with pmcectli ng; antler SmIuln 6,4 aril Soction ii.5. Page 11A-55: Has this been approved by all impacted utilities (SCE, Cable, Verizon, ATT, etc.)? UI ILI PIES 15 Undergrounding of Utilities. All utility scrvicc lines shall be underground. This includes all existutg above ground u tres (hat cross over the property that tied adlacent properties. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 Page 11A-76: Why are minimum setbacks listed "...between property line and building..." except for South setback? If a lot line adjustment is being made to allow the property to be purchased by the Discovery Science Foundation, is the applicant being allowed to build right up to the revised property line? SECTION 10 — Setback standards in Specific Development No. 93 (a) North setback. A minimum building setback of ten (10) ful shall be provided between I e pi[ mpertTine and buildings along 5anliago Park. (h) South setback. A minimum building setback of one hundred thirty-four (134) feet shall be provided from Edgewood Road. (e) West setback. A minimum building setback of twelve (l2) feel shall be provided between the properly line and buildings along Main Street, (d) East setback. A minimum building setback of ninety (90) feet shall be provided etwecn t e east property line and buildings. Page 11A-78: Emergency access on Edgewood. In the Myth vs Reality handout the applicant provided at the November 1911 City Council meeting, Myth #3 states "All Palm Trees On Edgewood Remain". This is not possible if item (c) below is implemented per the plan drawings. (cl I7u Emergency Vehicular Access Lai4c (Fire Laic) with access to Edgcwood Road shall he bated per Orange C,gunty Fire Authority and City Public Works Agency requirements and standards. The emcrgetiucy lane shall not be used ltr trash staging, trash loading audier nuuve-ituvouts. No other vehicular access ur curb approach openings will be approved on Edgawood Road for the project, Page 11A-78: Each unit will have a patio or balcony that will be a minimum of 50 square feet. This is not correct per the most recently submitted plan which shows 46 units without a patio or balcony. W Private Open Space. Each residential unit shall have a palio or balcony a minimum of Sp square feet in size. Page 11A-78: Only eight units have a designated storage area in their unit (Floor Plans A8, A8-ALT and B2). Where are storage units for the remaining 248 units? (d) Suirasw A minimum of M cubic fbot of storage, in aui<Won to interior bedroom closets, shall be provided with minimum dimeasions aP4 feud by 8 feat per uaiL ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 Page 11A-85: Engineering mistakes can occur. Just look at what happened at the Lincoln/Fairhaven railroad crossing. The road was permanently closed due to a poor plan. The changes proposed on Main St. need more than a paint drawing to show that it is feasible. Look for yourself... There is insufficient space to allow their proposal to succeed. p There are no patios on floor Plan S1.1 Floor Plan A8, A8-ALT and B2 have designated storage areas (3 percent or 8 Units) NUM ro oa Reduction Units So Ft per Unit Patio Area STUDIO 74 29.91% 51 24 552 1420$ 53 51.1 46 556 25576 0 52 4 559 2236 SO ONE Bedroom 103 40.23% Al 40 634 25360 58 A2 21 79G 16116 66 A6 25 633 15825 55 A6.1 4 804 3216 55 A6•ALT 4 795 3180 55 1 866 866 57 3 930 2790 57 A10 3 721 2163 64 Al2 2 863 1726 69 TWO Bedroom 75 29% 01 25 1148 28700 G6 4 1005 4020 59 B6 5 1112 1132 14 B6-ALT 3 1179 3517 74 87 30 909 27270 G1 B7.1 2 1022 2044 61 08 4 6 1012 1 033 4048 61 6198 MISSING B9 iH REE Bedroom 4 2% cl 4 1 1362 1 544$ 1 67 Numner of Floor Flans: 21 256 1 1 196,259 ONLY 3 PERCENT (8 UNITS) HAVE A DESIGNATED STORAGE AREA FLOOR PLANS A8, A8-ALT AND 132 PATgF.LAf znw ec FFI I� 11uT lu' I fS YKE 4 ttb P AL'M IC a — u U IiiF UNIT A$ 1 wtlfCGA- t BL1M UNIT AREA W SO FT PATIOIBALC. 575O. FT PAIIGflµC µb.T rIL�Yh'l �u ItY aiy L ' !, MIT A-0 ALT 1 pEarCY- I IY1N UNIT AfLA. 9]Q ip Ft PATIOAIALC it SO FT WTW :ecwcc..,tw "ITMEA IO 80 FT PAT4PSALCLV 55g " NO PATIOS FOR 46 UNITS UNIT SI I ST"b 16Am UNIT AREA. 6W SQ FT PATIaM0014t A 10 cc: citycoundI ansanta-ana.org eCom ments@santa-ana.org 11 Kristine Ridge City Manager, Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho City Attorney, Santa Ana Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Vince Fregoso, Manager, Planning Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chair, Planning Commission 12 Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com December 3, 2019 Mayor Pulido and Santa Ana City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza, 8th Floor Santa Ana CA 92702 Subject: 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, 2) For the reasons stated on the attached pages and those that have been presented to you by other residents, I ask that you deny the second reading approval of Ordinance NO. NS-2979 and Ordinance NO. NS-2980. Both ordinances have several major and minor issues with implications that should be fully understood. In many cases the City is "leaving money on the table" which it can ill afford to do. Please take a look at some of the comments I made regarding serious concerns I have with the two ordinances. I know other residents will be submitting their valid concerns as well. I do care about all of Santa Ana and that is why I attend more than just issues related to 2525. Show that you care about all communities and exercise the leadership it takes to say no. Not all zoning changes are for the better. I ask that you deny the second reading approval. Respectfully, U-a 4 It Dale A Helvig Chairman, North Santa Ana Preservation Association (NSAPA) Page 1 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.docz Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-18: Term of Agreement is listed as four years. It should be 55 years. 2.4 t lJn the term of ihis Agrrcmatl shall commence on the date (the "COrID[tenCernent Date"I that is the Erfective D41e,4' lour (4) years t(dripocr. unless this terra is modified or extended pursuant to the provis;ons of ihis ALM11reil thereafter, the OWNER shall have no vcsicd right under this Agreemeni- regardless of uhelher of run OWNER has paid uny Irvrlolvnrru Impact o'er Page 11A-19 This penalty is not anywhere near enough to incentivize the applicant to complete the project on time, and the penalty amount will do little to help the City. A penalty at least half the development's projected annual income should be considered. This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks. Extending the construction process will further impact the residents of North Santa Ana due to dust, noise and construction traffic, especially those with property bordering the development. Why settle for less? This general fund money could be used to help the homeless or improve parks if it is collected, The City is potentially giving money away. 1W OWNFR shall pay to the City Fitly Thousand Dollars (S'4),0001 to partially compensate the City for the- significant lost revenue to be received by the City had the Project been completed. Page 11A-26: Why would the City give them a no bid $1.4 million contract? The applicant should contribute their $700,000 towards the project. There is no low end protection. (bl Santiago Park Improvemennl Construction. At the C'ity's dctcrrmttation. owns shall manage and cnratruct the Santiago Park Phase Il Park Improvements ("Park Improvements") subject to review and approval by the City, the Park Improvements shall mchide. but are not limited in design. engineering. Permitting, eniw!nrction. acsl installation of irrigation, landscaping, security lighting and bike trail "haisecment, as described in more detai. nn Exhibit G- The total expenditure for the Park Improvements shall not exceed Cync Million Four Hundred -rhousand Dollars (SI.400,000) ("Phase 11 Exponduurc`). •fhc State Coasial Conservancy has 11mirled the Coy that it has allocated up to Two Hundred Fifty Thotuand Dollars 0250,000) for the Design of the Park I mprovemcnrs, If and when the City receive; the funds, in the eveia that the Design waif: for the Park Improvements is less than Two Hundred Fitly Thousand Dollars (5250,1R)Oi, the City at its sole discretion, may make a request to State Cmslal Conservancy, and ;f approved bry ilic ,4geri y, the City will apply the excess grant funds to co"Mriletion as Pan of thcCity's contribution to the Park Improvements. Ownushallberesimnsibk for all Aspects of the Pork.Imprcwemmits; Prior nr issuarcl. of permi[s, C'iiy steal I have the nghU to mvirw, approve•, and accept the dcsien and mwertal qualoq of [he Park linpinvemews. Owner shall complete the Park Improvemems to a timely Gshion, by the earlier of 36 months following issuance by the City the first building permit for the construction of the Developm m, or prior to issuance of final approval of occupancy, for the Deveiopmem- Followiiqp cunrdefor::,: the Park lr :pruv'eluenCt. and no Ater than three %cars from the issuance of a nonce of acceptant u[ Park I mprovemew- City shall retimhurse 0wner an amount egtral10 fifty percent.(50%1 of the total cost of the Park improvements, up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars Page 2 of 8 . - 2019-12-03 Letter to City Councll.dom Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 heivig_denny@msn.com ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 Page 11A-28: There are no specifics as to how this is determined. Its -It's unreasonable for one City official to make this determination. (1 11 I.imneq access to truite amenities in a manner to be determined by OWNER as reasonably acceptable to Planning and Building Agency Executive Director. Page 11A-28: LED street lighting in Park Santiago is almost completed. Will the applicant be reimbursing the City for the entire project orjust cover the remaining 6 percent of the project? (2) Street lighting enhancements by replacing all existing nun LED light arullor fixturcwith LED light and/or fixture throughout the Santiago Park Neighborhood. Page 13A-31: If OWNER fails to take the necessary actions, the Commission may recommend to the City Council modification or termination of this Agreement. They violate the agreement, so we terminate it. How absurd is that! They should be held accountable for correcting the deficiency or pay a fine. fall If the Planning Commission finds ;end deaesmrnei on dic htisis of sub6taolinl evidence that (J WNFR has not complied in gmid fouk wwith rho tenust and anulidLms uftllis Agreenwrr, the Coinnussmn shaI I provide w alien 0 nuceto OWN FR ni such lind mg s setang fort h the nature n f the problem and the notions, if nny, required by OWNER to litre such prnhlran and, what the problem can be cured, OWNFR hss railed io Late such aching Hoot cure such probleri within Thirty (Mh days alter the effiwivt dale of such notice LIT, In TILL event IJctl smh ptablern cannot bUCIITCLl whlvn such thirty i 11)1 day penal but can be cured within a Ionw, umc, has rw loci to continence the actims nc=sory to cures acli probiont within such luny OQJ du) poiud and w JJiean.y pI, c"vd to wmltx1csuoh aetions;ntd anc,,ueh probi Lill. '({� 171y7y(R1ils to tnkc the reeasary actiuns, the E'onaa ssma Rbiyr-tecmnmand milififitsotim or Lwitinatiml of the Agmemem. UW'NER may appeal. a Planning Corrvxassion deremrinatiott pursuant w ilus SecL_on 6. 3(df pursuant to Crn-% rules tier eonsideratinn of appeals In mnmL; nrauers then in el leer Nonce nl Jef'aul: as innvidal undo Scauun 7 3 tit this Agreement slyotl he (Liven In t!W'NFR priarrn to cur-curnnl w ¢h pntecedirys under S.cunn h.a and Sni'tlnnfi3 Page 13A-SS: Has this been approved by all impacted utilities (SCE, Cable, Verizon, ATT, etc.)? Ur}urfES 25. Undergrounding of Utilities. All utility service lines shall be underground. This includes all existinu above groumi wires that cross over the property that teed adjacent properties. Page 3 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.de a Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 Page 11A-76: Why are minimum setbacks listed "...between property line and building..." except for South setback? If a lot line adjustment is being made to allow the property to be purchased by the Discovery Science Foundation, is the applicant being allowed to build right up to the revised property line? FECTION 10 — Setback standards in Suetifrc Development No. 93 (a) North setback. A minimum building setback of ten (10) feet shall be provided between t le property the and buildings along Santiago Park, (h) South setback. A minimum building setback ofone hundred thirty-four (134) feet shall be provided from Edgewood Road. (c) West setback. A minimum building setback of twelve (L2) feet shall be provided ween the property line and buildings along Main Street. (d) East sethack. A minimum building setback of ninety (90) feet shall he provided etwe�en a to east property line and buildings, Page 11A-78: Emergency access on Edgewood. In the Myth vs Reality handout the applicant provided at the November 19th City Council meeting, Myth #3 states "All Palm Trees On Edgewood Remain". This is not possible if item (c) below is implemented per the plan drawings. (ci The Emergency Vchicular Access Lane (pirc Late) wide access to Edgmurxl Read shall he gaied per Oraugc County Fire Authority and City Public Worlo Agen4y requirements and standards. The cptergencv lane sSail not he used i.rr crash staging, trash loading author nruve-it&outs. No other vehicular acu ,�s or curb approach openings will be approved on Edgcwood Road for the project. Page 13A-78: Each unit will have a patio or balcony that will be a minimum of 50 square feet. This is not correct per the most recently submitted plan which shows 46 units without a patio or balcony. (c) Private Open Space. Each residential .unit shall have a patio of balcony a minimum or 50 square feet in sim. Page 11A-78: Only eight units have a designated storage area in their unit (Floor Plans A8, A8-ALT and 82). Where are storage units for the remaining 248 units? (d) 5twage. A minimum of 250 cubic feet of storage, in addition lu interiur bedrtxim elosas, €hallbe provided w!(h rtiiaimrall dimettsiuns of feet by R feeL per unit_ Page 4 of 8 , 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.doa Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com I'M INTRr•».ra►EIM-01 Page 11A-85: Engineering mistakes can occur. Just look at what happened at the Lincoln/Fairhaven railroad crossing. The road was permanently closed due to a poor plan. The changes proposed on Main St. need more than a paint drawing to show that it is feasible. Look for yourself... There is insufficient space to allow their proposal to succeed. Page 5 of 8 , - 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.docx Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com There are no patios on floor Plan S1.1 Floor Plan A8, A8-ALT and B2 have designated storage areas (3 percent or 8 Units) um ro I Reduction flniss Sq Ft. per Unit F'atio Area STUDIO 74 28.91% 51 24 592 14208 53 51.1 46 556 25576 52 4 555 2236 50 ONE Bedroom 103 4023% Al 40 634 25360 58 A2 21 7 5 G 16716 66 A6 25 633 15825 SS A6.1 4 804 3216 55 A6-ALT 4 795 3180 55 1 866 866 57 3 930 2790 57 A10 3 721 2161 64 Al2 2 863 1726 69 TWO Bedroom 75 29% Bl 25 1148 28100 66 82,,._ 4 1005 4020 59 B6 1 1132 1132 74 B6-ALT 3 1179 3537 74 B7 30 900 27270 61 B71 2 1022 2044 61 08 4 6 1012 1033 4048 61 6198 MISSING B9 THREE Bedroom 4 2% cl A 1 1362 15443 G7 Number a! Floor Plans: 21 256 196,259 Page 6 of 8 . - 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.dou Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com ONLY 3 PERCENT (8 UNITS) HAVE A DESIGNATED STORAGE AREA FLOOR PLANS A8, A8-ALT AND B2 - PAeQ'BgLC ❑ — _ StOR � k-0'XT-Y PAT C. ❑ � Ski I I'-0%6d ❑ �� 9P UNIT A-8 t BMRW -I BATH UNIT AREA 866 SO. FT PATIO/BALL 51 SO_ FT. UNIT B2 2BEOflWM-J"p UNITAREA: JMSO.PT, PATIOIBALCONY. 59 SO. PT, UNIT A-e ALT_ I BmRPoM-I m. UNIT AREA 930 SO. PT. PATIOMALC: W SO. F Page 7 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.dea Dale Helvig 2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706 714-541-7254 helvig_denny@msn.com NO PATIOS FOR 46 UNITS UNIT Sl 1 SN010-1 BA" UNIT AREA= 556 SO. Ff. 0ATIO%6ALCOkY: q cc: citycounciIOsanta-ana.org eComments@santa-ana.org Kristine Ridge City Manager, Santa Ana Sonia Carvalho City Attorney, Santa Ana Minh Thai Executive Director, Planning Vince Fregoso, Manager, Planning Selena Kelaher Associate Planner Mark McLoughlin Chair, Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 2019-12-03 Letter to City Council.docx Salas, Diana From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 3:11 PM To: Pulido, Miguel; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Solorio, Jose; Penaloza, David; Iglesias, Cecilia; Bacerra, Phil Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; eComment Subject: Items 11 A (1) and (2) Consent Calendar (Second Reading Ordinances 2525 North Main Street) City Council Meeting Tuesday 12-3-2019 Attachments: Development Agreemt Concerns 12-3-2019.docx Greetings Mayor Pulido and Council members,f piLi As your constituent and a Santa Ana voter, I object to the inclusion of Items 11A (1) and (2) in the Consent Calendar on the December 3, 2019 Council agenda.l I also object to the final adoption of these ordinances by Council on second reading without further informed discussion. The Consent Calendar should be reserved for "routine" items that can appropriately be enacted by one motion without discussion. With due respect, that is obviously not the case here. The final votes on adoption of the Development Agreement and Zoning Amendment for 2525 North Main Street are clearly not routine and must not be enacted by a single motion without further discussion. Therefore, I request that Council pull the two ordinances in 11A from the consent calendar for further discussion before voting, Before you decide, give the City Staff and City Attorney another opportunity to review the concerns presented to you in the enclosed "Development Agreement Concerns" document. Reconvene in January 2020 to make a final informed decision My neighbors have summarized their concerns about the Development Agreement in a single document and presented this list of their concerns to you. The "Development Agreement Concerns" document is part of the record you are considering. I have enclosed a copy with this letter. As my neighbors have said in the first two paragraphs on the first page, "(g)iven the constant plan evolution and staff work -load, the neighbors have discovered a number of issues/problems with the development agreement. The Development Agreement along with legal objections made by the Association's attorney and other attorneys who objected should be evaluated during a one -month deferral. The City Attorney and Planning Director should be given an opportunity to clean up a number of problems/ambiguities in the document and staff would have an opportunity to obtain meaningful concessions for the City that appear to have been overlooked. A summary of major and minor deficiencies/problems with the development agreement follows. Issues perceived as major or where the City is not receiving a fair deal have been highlighted in bold." Let the voters decide. Send the ordinances to a City Wide referendum and election. If you are truly concerned that those of us speaking against this project do not represent the will of your constituents and best interests of the greater community of Santa Ana, send these ordinances to the voters. Put these ordinances on the ballot in a special or general election referendum. Don't burden your constituents with the enormous responsibility of sending these ordinances to a City wide vote. if you still have doubts about what our community supports, take the initiative to let the voters all across the City decide this controversial issue. Let the majority of the voters of Santa Ana decide whether to build this project. Alternatively, I request that tonight those of you who supported the project on November 19, 2019 reconsider and oppose rather than adopt these two ordinances. There is ample evidence in the record to do so. If you carefully review the information presented at the last City Council Meeting on November 19, 2019, 1 believe you must conclude that both ordinances rest on a deeply flawed and incomplete Environmental Impact Report ((EIR) No. 2018-01.) The Development Agreement you are voting on tonight becomes null and void if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that the Environmental Impact Report is invalid for any reason or it otherwise does not go into effect. (Section 5, para. 2, page 8 of 10, Ordinance NS-2979. ) Finally, both the proposed Development Agreement and the Zoning Amendment adversely affect and conflict with the City's General Plan, even as amended per Amendment No. 2018-06 and Amendment Application No. 2018-10. Thank you for your service to our City. Respectfully; sE' sE,',' Mrs. Ellen Koldewey:Eo+ Santa Ana CA 92706 1 IIA ORDINANCE SECOND READING: APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 201 SA1 WITH AC 2525 MAIN, LLC AND AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 201 MI TO ESTABLISH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) FOR 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 21— Planing and Building Agency Placed on first reading at the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting and approved by a vote of 4-3 (Bacerm, Pulido and Villegas dissented). Published in the Orange County Reporter on November 22, 2019. EECOMMENDED ACTION.. Place ordinances on second reading and adopt. 1. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979-AN ORDINANCE OF THE CTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 201801 BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATE➢AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WITHIN THE CFIV OF SANTA ANA PUMUANTTOCALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTCOOESEMON 65864, ET SEC. 2. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2960-AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITYCOUNOLAPPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERLY 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. 93ISM3) FOR SAID PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNS: Given the constant plan evolution and staff work -load, the neighbors have discovered a number of issues/problems with the development agreement. The development agreement along with legal objections made by the Association's attorney and other attorneys who objected should be evaluated during a one -month. deferral. The City Attorney and Planning Director should be given an opportunity to clean up a number of problems/ambiguities in the document and staff would have an opportunity to obtain meaningful concessions for the City that appear to have been overlooked. A summary of major and minor deficiencies/problems with the development agreement follows. Issues perceived as major or where the City is not receiving a fair deal have been highlighted in bold. Section 2.2: The agreement is with the ownership. However, the present lender has a senior real property interest. Therefore, the City should consider having the lender subordinate its interest in the property (agree to comply with the agreement). ***Section 2.4/2.4.1: The term of the agreement is 4 years from adoption of the ordinance. The City Manager may agree to two (2) additional one (1) year extensions. Unclear if the developer is required to pay $50,000 per one (1) year extension or $100,000 in total. The amount for an extension is unreasonable and should be increased commensurate with the actual loss of purported income the project would generate (substantial amount of lost revenue/walking away from money on the table). 2.5.1: This provision allows the developer to sell the property provided the new buyer agrees to comply with its terms. The agreement should also bind any lender/holder of a senior interest in the property. Per Section 2.5.1, the assignment only binds a "purchaser, transferee, or assignee". This should be modified to encompass a lender. Section 9 attempts to resolve this agreement by clarifying that a lender who forecloses is bound. However, as the present lender has not signed the agreement and a future lender is not being asked to subordinate its interest, it is unclear whether Section 9 saves the City. ***2.5.5: This provision provides that the agreement terminates upon sale or lease of any subdivided lot to a member of the public or final user. This would be appropriate if the property were being subdivided for sale to individual parties. Not appropriate in this instance and creates a significant ambiguity given that the property will be subdivided to accommodate the sale of a portion of the property to the museum. Section 2.7: The agreement is deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of expiration of the term in Section 2.4 which is 4 years. However, there are provisions that are intended to carry on for significantly longer periods of time (e.g., 55 years for security patrol). Section 3.1: Rights to develop are vested and development remains subject to land use regulations and development approvals. Should clarify that such regulations would preclude alternative uses of the portion of the subdivided parcel being conveyed to the museum. ***Section 3.3.1(d) provides that no "Development Exactions" may be applied against developer to the development of the property unless agreed to by owner. The problem with this provision is that the definition of "Development Exaction" is too broad and includes "...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 interest." The definition should provide greater specificity and reserve to the City the ability to impose other exactions if additional impacts are indicated during building plan review. ***Section IS: Provides timing for development and allows the developer to build "at such times and in as many development phases and sub -phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole business judgement." The problem this creates is that the developer could demolish the Wells Fargo site and leave a large landfill until the next phase. Greater specificity on development phasing should be provided. Section 3.6.1: City Attorney required to approve developer's CCRs. City Charter does not appear to provide the City Attorney with authority to approve such third party documents. ***Section 3.6.3: If City Attorney fails to respond within 30 days, the City will have been deemed to have approved the CCRs. This is extraordinarily uncommon given work -flow in the City (e.g., what happens if the City Attorney is absent, on vacation, or if it is lost in the mail.). Governments rarely allow for defacto approval due to a non -response. ***Section 4.2.1: Suggest that public art section be consolidated with a requirement for a pedestrian bridge crossing Main Street. No metrics given for evaluating how 0.5% of the project's value are given. No requirement for City "approval" of the art plan. ***Section 4.2.1(b): Santiago Park Improvement text is extremely confusing. Owner may be required to manage and construct Santiago Park Phase II Public Improvements subject to review and approval by the "City." The agreement defines the term "City" and "City Council" differently. Who approves the budget and management plan? No requirement for a minimum spend by the developer, only that the project cost will not exceed 1.4 million. No provision for a payout of $700k to the extent City decides to construct improvements on its own. No provision for how the City will "pay back" 700k (e.g., will this be credited against impact fees)? No appraisal process for value of developer work. This is another example of the City leaving money on the table. Has City determined whether the developer's work on the park is a public project and will prevailing wage be paid? ***Section 4.2.1(c) No parameters given to guide decision - making for limited access to Park Santiago neighbors to onsite amenities. Potentially discriminatory against other residents. Section 4.3.2: Specifies timing for impact fee payment. Confusing clause states, "No fees shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement...." What permits is this Section referring to? Appears to be remnant text from boiler plate but creates ambiguity. ***Section 4.3.3: This Section provides for the issuance of fee credits to the developer. No metric given for how the credits will be calculated/how the developer's conveyance of public land or park improvements will be valued. This is another example of the City potentially leaving money on the table. Why would the developer get fee credits for right of way dedications necessitated by the project? Section 4.6: Park access easement to be given by developer. Approval for the easement appears to be by the City and not City Council. Receipt and acceptance of an easement would require City Council approval. ***Section 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 require development of a overcrowding mitigation plan, local live work preference, and local sourcing plan. Approvals are not by City Council and the method of approving these plans appear to violate the Charter. Moreover, no penalties are set forth for the developer/future owner's failure to comply. Section 4.8 also allows the developer to change the overcrowding mitigation plan upon notice to the City but no approval by the City is required? ***Section 5 recognizes owners right to set up a financing district. Why? This clause would be appropriate for a residential subdivision —not an apartment complex. Unclear whether and how this would apply to adjoining properties. However, developer is required to pay 50k to City for funding a study for establishment of an assessment district. This may be construed as the developer paying for a study to justify the inclusion of other properties. The text should be clarified such that developer may not add other properties to a special assessment district or request that other properties be added. ***Section 6: Provides for annual compliance review. No metrics given and no financial penalties proscribed for non- compliance. Section 6.2: Provides for special compliance reviews upon request by City Council. City Manager to perform review. No provision for the developer paying for this form of review or how deficiencies to be addressed. Section 6.3(d) requires extensive ***Section 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 require development of a overcrowding mitigation plan, local live work preference, and local sourcing plan. Approvals are not by City Council and the method of approving these plans appear to violate the Charter. Moreover, no penalties are set forth for the developer/future owner's failure to comply. Section 4.8 also allows the developer to change the overcrowding mitigation plan upon notice to the City but no approval by the City is required? ***Section 5 recognizes owners right to set up a financing district. Why? This clause would be appropriate for a residential subdivision —not an apartment complex. Unclear whether and how this would apply to adjoining properties. However, developer is required to pay 50k to City for funding a study for establishment of an assessment district. This may be construed as the developer paying for a study to justify the inclusion of other properties. The text should be clarified such that developer may not add other properties to a special assessment district or request that other properties be added. ***Section 6: Provides for annual compliance review. No metrics given and no financial penalties proscribed for non- compliance. Section 6.2: Provides for special compliance reviews upon request by City Council. City Manager to perform review. No provision for the developer paying for this form of review or how deficiencies to be addressed. Section 6.3(d) requires extensive hearings for findings of deficiency but does not specify the imposition of financial penalties for non-compliance. ***Section 6.4: IF the agreement were terminated, what recourse would the City have and what would happen to the obligations that are supposed to run for the duration of the agreement (e.g., 55 year security patrol)? Agreement should provide a financial penalty clause. ***Section 7.4: Gives owner a termination right for a material default by City. This might be appropriate in a City lease but given that the City has few meaningful obligations in the lease, does not appear to be appropriate here. Section 9: This Section gives owner recognition that it may mortgage the property but does not require that the mortgagee subordinate its interest to the agreement. Section 9(d) is helpful because that Section clarifies that if a mortgagee takes the property, it takes the property subject to this agreement. However, neither the existing lender (if there is one) or a new lender are parties to this agreement and this provision is of questionable enforcement without a lender subordination. ***Section 10.4: Agreement should provide for strict construction against the developer/owner. Exhibit D should provide the method of calculation for impact fees. Exhibit E should provide criteria/metrics for how impact fee credits would be determined. Exhibit I (Development Conditions) General Conditions: (1) No project description provided (space filler provided). (3) No provision made for financial penalties for non- compliance. (5) Why is the City waiving the right to indemnification should it settle a lawsuit or abandon the approvals? Project Design and Operations: ***2. Recognizes the owner's ability to convert to condominium ownership. No discussion of condominium ownership was made before Council/analyzed previously. ***7. Unclear who reviews and approves the developer's parking plan. No financial penalties provided for non- compliance. Section 7 states, "The approved PMP [Parking Management Plan" shall be adhered to and enforced by the Project at all times." Why does the City not take an enforcement right? 8. How will good neighbor policy be enforced? 11/12. How will the project preserve and protect designated trees? Consider requiring reimbursing the City for having a contract arborist onsite/monitoring compliance. 15. Unclear what happens if City Council does not approve Santiago Park Entrance and Interface. 23. Requires "review and applicability by the Planning and Building Agency" for a property maintenance plan. I believe this should be "review and approval" (not "applicability"). This should be vetted and approved by Council. Utilities: ***25: Undergrounding service lines crossing the property and feeding other properties must be undergrounded. However, undergrounding of third party service may require that utilities (such as SCE) secure replacement easements and/or require third party property owners to make changes to their intake systems (meters, receiving points for utilities) which subjects other residents to added cost. Other utilities such as SCE, Time Warner, and ATT should be consulted to see how this would be implanted and whether or not it would be feasible. ***26. Why does the requirement for a "composite utility plan" only apply to above ground appurtenances when the preceding clause requires undergrounding? I believe the intent is for a "consolidated" utility plan showing all utilities. Construction: No provisions made to prevent construction vehicles from parking on Edgewood or elsewhere in Park Santiago neighborhood. ***46. Utility cuts at the behest of the developer should require lane to lane repaving as opposed to discreet patches. ***Development Conditions in Exhibit B to the Specific Plan should be cross-checked with the Development Agreement and site plan. For example, Section 17(d) requires the developer provide 250 cubic feet of storage. The bulk of units neither have such storage nor patios upon which to create such storage. The plans should be updated to reflect the method or location of storage and/or the development agreement should be adjusted to take these kinds of conditions into account. C "o� 'wed by Sbhr) Frain CIA ccM )P,/-3/,2o/g Sec. 41-593.1. - Purpose and intent. The Specific Development District and suffix is authorized and established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the city and its residents by: (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (Ord. No. NS-1200, § 1, 3-18-74) Sec. 41-593.1. - Purpose and intent. The Specific Development District and suffix is authorized and established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the city and its residents by: (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (Ord. No. NS-1200, § 1, 3-18-74) Sec. 41-593.1. - Purpose and intent. The Specific Development District and suffix is authorized and established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the city and its residents by: (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (Ord. No. NS-1200, § 1, 3-18-74) Sec. 41-593.1. - Purpose and intent. The Specific Development District and suffix is authorized and established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the city and its residents by: (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (Ord. No. NS-1200, § 1, 3-18-74)