Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 11AOrozco, Norma From: Suzanne Mcdonald <oldmcdonald@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:59 PM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Main St. Project I am attending the City Council meeting tonight and bringing a report in the OC Register that gave Santa Ana an A+for housing. This is one more reason, on top of all the others that you've heard from the neighbors, why we do not need to put these apartments in the wrong place or actually in our city. We are not desperate for housing in Santa Ana, especially considering Main Place Mall apartments in the near future. Please reconsider your stand to build these "architecturally too modern" apartments in a old town area. Please think of us and the future of this area. At least vote for a referendum so we can let the citizens decide. See you tonight! Sue McDonald manatt December 16, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Santa Ana City Council Attn: Clerk of the Council (dgomez n santa-ana.org) 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Fancily Project (Addington Multi -Family Residential Project) Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: Susan K. Hori Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (714) 371-2528 E-mail: shori@manatt.com This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, AC 2525 Main, LLC, the applicant for the 2525 N. Main Street project (the "Project'), in response to issues raised by opponents of the Project at the City Council meeting of December 3, 2019, when the adoption of certain Project approvals were scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The City Council continued considerations of these approvals to the City Council meeting of December 17, 2019. Many of these same arguments were presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 19, 2019. The Council action scheduled for December 3`1 would have been the conclusion of a lengthy process for the consideration of this Project. Over the last two years, this Project has undergone extensive environmental review as well as several Planning Commission hearings at which the public has provided City decisionmakers with their concerns and comments. As a result, the Project that comes before you has been substantially reduced in size and environmental impact, and provides additional benefits to the community. The original application contemplated a 496 unit residential project ("Original Project'). It was originally considered by the Planning Commission in August, 2018. The City prepared a Draft EIR that was circulated for public review, and after responding to all comments received, a Final EIR was also submitted to the Planning Commission, but was not certified at that time. Subsequently, over the course of the multi -year entitlement process that this Project has undergone, our client received comments on the Original Project from City staff, Commissioners and Councilmembers, as well as from neighborhood groups and individual citizens and their representatives. As a result, our client undertook to reduce the impact of the Original Project in order to address the concerns that were raised. The Project that came before you (the "October 2019 Project') reduced the number of residential units to 256 units and made corresponding changes to other aspects of the Original Project, including modifications to the unit sizes and 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924 Telephone: 714.371,2500 Fax: 714.371.2550 Albany I Boston I Chicago I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 2 mix, the development envelope, development setbacks and parking requirements. City staff and the City environmental consultant prepared a comprehensive analysis of the October 2019 Project in the Clarification of the 2525 Main Street Project, dated October, 2019, which was attached to the Final F,IR as Exhibit E (the "Clarification"). The Clarification concluded that the October 2019 Project would create less impacts than the Original Project and that the previously prepared Final EIR, as clarified, adequately addressed the potential environmental impacts of the October 2019 Project. Project opponents have submitted written comments objecting to the October 2019 Project on several grounds, many of which simply reflect their opposition to the October 2019 Project. Several of the comments raise legal questions that we wish to provide a response. These issues are the assertion that the Final EIR needs to be recirculated for public comment due to the modifications made to the Original Project over the course of its consideration by the City, the assertion that the October 2019 Project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, and the assertion that the approval of the October 2019 Project would result in illegal spot zoning. 1. Do Modifications to the Original Project Require Recirculation of the Final EIR? No. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15088.5) sets forth the criteria for recirculation of a Draft EIR before it is certified by the lead agency (i.e., the City). Section 15088.5 provides that a lead agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR only when significant new information is added to the Draft EIR before certification. New information can include "changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information but new information" but is not significant "unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement". (Id) "Significant new information" may also include the identification of a new significant environmental impact that would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact which would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (Id.) As demonstrated in the Clarification, the changes to the Original Project that are reflected in the October 2019 Project do not constitute "significant new information." Because, among other things, the number of units proposed in the October 2019 Project have been substantially reduced as compared to the Original Project, the environmental impacts have been reduced. As such, the analysis that was in the Final EIR, and addressed in the Clarification, demonstrate that the October 2109 Project will not result in any new significant environmental impacts, nor substantially increase the severity of previously -analyzed environmental impacts. manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 3 As noted by the California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, "the final FIR will almost always contain information not included in the draft EIR given the CEQA statutory requirements of circulation of the draft EIR, public comment, and response to these comments prior to certification of the final EIR. But `[rjecirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule."' (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 316, 328.) City staff and the City environmental consultant conducted a comprehensive review of the Original Project as compared to the Project in the Clarification. The Clarification evaluated every identified impact of the Original Project and compared the impacts of the October 2019 Project with regard to each impact. No significant new information meeting the requirements for recirculation was identified in the Clarification and substantial evidence supports that conclusion. The comments on the Final FIR, as supplemented by the Clarification, fail to identify any significant new information requiring recirculation pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The only new measures referenced in the comments were set forth in an Arborist Report. City staff has considered this comment and provided a comprehensive response explaining why the Arborist Report is not significant new information. The Report was included in the Draft EIR and was circulated for public review and comment as part of the EIR The measures set forth in the Report are not new measures. Moreover, the potential impacts on the Western mastiff bat also raised by the commenter in connection with the implementation of the recommendations in the Arborist Report were also addressed in the Draft EIR. (See Response to Comment 9 at page I IA-113, Request for Council Action Staff Report, December 3, 2019.) 2. Is the October 2019 Project Consistent with the City General Plan? Yes The record of the proceedings includes extensive analysis and findings regarding the consistency of the Modified Project with the City adopted General Plan. In adopting the resolution approving General Plan Amendment 2018-06, the City Council made the finding that the following goals and policies set forth in the Housing Element, Land Use Element and Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan were supported by and implemented by the October 2019 Project: o Housing Element (HE) Goal 2: To provide a diversity of quality housing, affordability levels, and living experiences that accommodate Santa Ana's residents and workforce of all household types, income levels, and age groups to foster an inclusive community. o HE Policy 2.2, District Centers: Create high intensity, mixed -use urban villages and pedestrian -oriented experiences that support the mid- to high-rise office centers, commercial activity, and cultural activities in the varied District Centers. manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 4 o HE Policy 2.4, Diverse Housing Types: Facilitate diverse types, prices and sizes of housing, including single-family homes, apartments, townhomes, mixed/multiuse housing, transit -oriented housing, multigenerational housing, and live -work opportunities. o HE Goal 4: To provide adequate rental and ownership housing opportunities and supportive services .... In assessing the Proj ect's consistency with the Housing Element, the City found that the Project will provide 256 rental housing units, and that the zoning amendment will expand the District Center designation and provide a connection between the existing District Centers to the north and south of the site by providing a residential development that will support a mixed -use environment. In addition to the City's findings, the Project will add to the diversity of housing types in the area, and will be compatible with nearby commercial areas. In addition to furthering the Goals and Policies in the Housing Element, the Project helps implement the following Goals and Policies in the Land Use Element. o Land Use (LU) Element Goal 1: Promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. o LU Policy 1.5: Maintain and foster a variety of residential land uses in the City. o LU Policy 4.3: Support land uses which provide community and regional economic and service benefits. o LU Policy 4.4: Encourage the development of projects which promote the City's image as a regional activity center. o LU Policy 5.5: Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses. o LU Policy 5.7: Anticipate that the intensity of new development will not exceed available infrastructure capacity. o LU Element Goal 6: Reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety. The City's findings identified that the Project is within 1/2 mile of existing transportation infrastructure such as the Santa Ana (1-5) freeway and State Route 22 (SR 22) highway which provide vehicular access to the region, the Orange County Transportation Agency bus routes along Main Street which connects to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center and the Anaheim Regional Intermodal Center which provides rail service manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 5 throughout California; and the project is immediately adjacent to Santiago Park and the Santiago Creels Bike Trail which connects to regional bike trails. Main Street, a major urban corridor with cultural, educational, employment and retail destinations such as the Bowers Museum, Discovery Science Center, Main Place Mall and in the City of Orange; the Children's Hospital of Orange County and St. Joseph's Hospital of Orange County. Therefore, the residential development and parking lot would be within close proximity to major employment centers and retail establishments. The Project will also provide an additional housing option for those seeking housing within the jobs rich northern area of the City. The multi -storied development will complement the nearby mid -rise office buildings located along Main Street to the north and west of the site. Although the density will be higher than the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood, the residential use is consistent with the residential uses to the east and south. In addition, multi -family uses are often used in land use planning and zoning practice to buffer higher intensity uses like commercial or industrial uses from single-family residential uses. Lastly, the City identified the following goals and policies in the General Plan Urban Design Element: o Urban Design (UD) Element Goal 1: Improve the physical appearance of the City through development of districts that project a sense of place, positive community image, and quality environment. o UD Policy 1.1: New development and redevelopment projects must have the highest quality design, materials, finishes and construction. o UD Policy 1.11: Visual and physical links between districts, nodes, and significant sites, landmarks and other points of interest, are to be provided in all public and private projects. The City found that the residential buildings are of high quality design and include high quality materials such as stone veneer, brick veneers, metal panels, and canopies. The building is designed with courtyards and landscaped areas to reduce the mass of the building. The Project has street fiontage on Main Street which is identified as a major path in the General Plan and supports the North Main Street Node described as an opportunity for the establishment of a cohesive, height intensity, mixed activity center with a strong presence in the region. The setback along the east side of the project has been increased to 90 feet and the setback from Edgewood Road has been increased to 134 feet to minimize impacts to the neighboring single-family residences. The new development will include public art and convey a sense of place and contribute to the urban image for the City along a street corridor that includes regional, local and cultural landmarks. The development will be in scale with the buildings along Main Street to the north and west of the site. In addition, the Urban Design Element of the General Plan manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 6 identifies the site as a Gateway; the Project promotes elements of a Gateway by developing the site with a building with attractive architectural features, projecting a positive image for the City of Santa Ana. Courts defer to a City's finding of consistency with its General Plan, which are adopted in accordance with the City Council's legislative capacity, and therefore, the City Council has unique competence to interpret the policies set forth in those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of tllonterey (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 142.) Because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies when applying them, and it has broad discretion to construe its policies in light of the plan's purposes. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704.) A reviewing court's role "is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies." (Id. at 720.) An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. (Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.AppAth 807, 817.) Applying these principals, there is substantial evidence to support the City's analysis and its finding that the October 2019 Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. 3. Will Approval of the Project Result in Illegal Spot Zoning? No As noted by one of the individuals commenting on the Project, the definitive case on spot zoning was decided by our Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.AppAth 1302. Our firm served as counsel for the Real Party in Interest (the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County) in that case. Prior to the Foothill Communities decision, spot zoning cases dealt only where a parcel of property was down -zoned, as compared to the surrounding property, and the owner of the down -zoned property pursued litigation against the government for taking away its property rights on an individual parcel basis. In the Foothill Communities decision, however, the Diocese's property was designated for senior housing which the opponents felt provided an intensification of development as compared to the surrounding single family neighborhoods that adjoined the re- zoned parcel. A situation not unlike the Project before you. While the court noted that there was no published case in California that directly addressed the type of spot zoning where the contested parcel is not down -zoned, but is given greater rights than the surrounding properties, "spot zoning" may occur when a small parcel of land is subject to more or less restrictive zoning than surrounding properties. But, whether a particular "spot zoning" action is illegal or impermissible requires a second step. Once a court determines that a property has been re -zoned so that its zoning is less restrictive than the surrounding properties, it must then examine whether said zoning is warranted. Specifically, the court held that "the rezoning ordinance may be justified, however, if a substantial public need exists, and this is so even if the private owner of the tract will also benefit." (Id. at 1314.) manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 7 In this case, however, the broader definition of spot zoning as articulated by the court is not even met. As staff noted in its response to comments, the Project zone change to Specific Development (SD) is the same as currently SD zoned areas located to the north of the site and to the west of the site across North Main Street. The proposed change in zoning would in fact provide more consistency with the zoning of nearby areas than the existing project site zoning - Professional (P). hi short, the proposed SD zoning would not result in more or less restrictive zoning than the nearby SD zoned properties. In addition, it should be noted that the Project site is already subject to an overlay zone permitting the conversion of nonresidential uses to residential uses. The overlay zone includes Main Street and adjoining areas and extends from I" Street to the northern City limits evidencing overriding general City policies in favor of residential development in these areas. Even if the SD zone change were to be considered spot zoning, as noted above, the issue becomes whether the spot zoning is an impermissible exercise of the police power. Citing the California Supreme Court case of Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino (1946) 29 Cal.2d 332, the court in the Foothill case applied a two part test applicable to challenges to zoning decisions. First, there must be a clear showing of abuse of legislative discretion. Second, it is incumbent on a party challenging the ordinance to produce sufficient evidence of the physical facts as will justify a court in concluding, as a matter of law, that the ordinance is an unreasonable and unwarranted exercise of the police power. Or paraphrasing the Foothill Communides court's statement of the issue: Was the rezoning and its application to the Project site in the public interest and was the decision arbitrary or capricious or devoid of evidentiary support? (Id.) No such showing has been made in this matter. The City's General Plan goals and policies in its band Use and Housing Elements identify the need to provide a diversity of housing and living experiences to accommodate a wide variety of needs of its residents. Given the need for additional housing in the City and the region, the density and design of the Project address a need for greater variety of residential land uses and thus provide a public benefit in implementing these General Plan goals and policies. As supported by City staffs and the EIR's analysis of the Project's General Plan consistency, the rezoning is not arbitrary or capricious, but is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The fact that the City considered the conversion of nonresidential uses to residential uses within a wide area of the City, including the Project site, is evidence of a considered regional policy in favor of conversions to residential uses. 4. Conclusion. In conclusion, the October 2019 Project has been fully analyzed as required by CEQA in the Draft FIR, Final EIR and the Clarification. There is nothing in the analysis that warrants recirculation of the City's EIR because none of the criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines for recirculation have been met. The October 2019 Project is substantially reduced in both size as manatt Santa Ana City Council December 16, 2019 Page 8 well as environmental impacts. In fact, the evolution of the Project from the development analyzed in the Draft FIR to the October 2019 Project analyzed in the Clarification demonstrates the power of CEQA and reflect how CEQA was envisioned to operate. It was as a result of the public review and comment process that modifications were made to the Original Project which have resulted in greater benefits and a reduction in environmental impacts. The City's envirommental analysis supports approval of the October 2019 Project and provides substantial evidence as to why recirculation of the environmental documents is not legally required. Lastly, the City's rezoning does not constitute spot zoning. The change from Professional to Specific Development for this property is not spot zoning, nor is it an unreasonable exercise by the City of its police powers. It furthers the goals and policies of the General Plan and is supported by findings and evidence in the record. For these reasons, we request the City to adopt the ordinances on second reading. Very truly yours, , L Susan K. Hori cc: Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Lisa Storck, Esq. Minh Thai Vince Fregoso Jeremy Ogulnick Ryan Ogulnick Pamela Sapetto 325623101.4 Salas, Diana From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:44 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: NOTICE TO INTENT TO FILE CEQA PETITION 2525 N. MAIN STREET PROJECT EIR NO. 2018-01, SCH NO. 2018021031 Attachments: Ltr to City Council re Ntc. of Commencement (12.17.19).PDF Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 L 2020 SANTA ANA COUNTS This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Viola R. Fennell [mailto:Viola.Fennell@ndlf.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:16 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org> Cc: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <JSolorio@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa- ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; Gomez, Daisy <dgomez@santa-ana.org>; Carvalho, Sonia R. <SCarvalho@santa-ana.org>; Stephanie L. Talavera <Stephanie.Talavera@ndlf.com>; Charles S. Krolikowski <Cha rles. Krolikowski @ nd If.com> Subject: NOTICE TO INTENTTO FILE CEQA PETITION 2525 N. MAIN STREET PROJECT EIR NO. 2018-01, SCH NO. 2018021031 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Ana City Council: Attached please find proposed petitioner's, Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development's, notice of intent to file CEQA petition challenging approvals related to the project titled 2525 N. Main Street Project, EIR No. 2018-01, SCH No. 2018021031, as against respondent the City of Santa Ana and its governing body Santa Ana City Council. Please let us know should you have any issues with the attached. Thank you, NEWMEYER OILLION 40 CREMATING 35 YFARS -1984-2019 Viola R. Fennell Legal Administrative Assistant 949.271.7297 1 Viola.Fennell@ndlf.com Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 newmeyerdillion.com NEWMEYER DILLIDN // December 17, 2019 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY, CERTIFIED MAIL, FASCIMILE & E-MAIL City of Santa Ana & Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Fax: 714-647-6954 E-mail: citvcouncil@santa-ana.orq Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street Fifth Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 854 7000 Charles S. Krolikowski Charles.Krolikowski@ndlf.com Re: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CEQA PETITION Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (the "Addington") Located at 2525 N. Main Street Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Santa Ana: This letter shall serve as notice pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.5 that proposed petitioner, Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development, an unincorporated association of concerned residents, intends to file a petition under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') commencing an action in the California Superior Court against respondent, the City of Santa Ana and its governing body, Santa Ana City Council. Said petition will seek to challenge the action taken and described in the Notice of Determination filed with the Orange County Clerk - Recorder Department on November 20, 2019, and attached hereto. Specifically, petitioner will be challenging the following as described in the Notice of Determination: On November 19, 2019, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana (Lead Agency) has: Adopted a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031), adopting findings of fact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; CSF1:3liffi I Las Vegas I Newport Beach I Walnut Creek newmeyerdillion.com Santa Ana City Council December 17, 2019 Page 2 • Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2018-01, as amended; • Adopted a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06; and • Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2018-10 for Specific Development No. 93. (Ntc. of Determination, at p. 2.) Petitioner's action will challenge the project commonly referred to as "Magnolia at the Park" or "the Addington," a proposed multi -family residential development project located at 2525 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, California, and generally at the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, Santa Ana, California. Petitioner seeks to challenge the project identified in the attached Notice of Determination, titled "2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project." (Ntc. of Determination, at p. 2.) This action will seek a peremptory writ of mandate/mandamus to vacate and to set aside the decision of the Santa Ana City Council as outlined in the Notice of Determination attached hereto and quoted above, seeking relief as follows: • To vacate and set aside certification of the inadequate Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) ("EIR"); • To vacate and set aside the Notice of Determination for the set aside its filing of the notice of determination for the project titled "2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project'; To review the project titled "2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project' in entirety; • To recirculate the EIR; • To prepare a legally adequate environmental impact report; and, To otherwise comply with CEQA and all other applicable state, federal, and local laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies in reviewing the project titled "2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project." In addition to a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Santa Ana City Council to take action as outlined above, petitioner will also seek • An order staying the effects of the certification of the EIR and other possible approvals; 4398.101 / 8550922.1 Santa Ana City Council December 17, 2019 Page 3 • An order directing Santa Ana City Council to pay petitioner's costs of suit in this action; An order directing Santa Ana City Council to pay petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees; and, • For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, C 1 Charles S. Krolikowski CSK Cc: Mayor Miguel Pulido, mpulido(a)santa-ana.orq Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, jvillegas(a�santa-ana.org Councilmember David Penaloza, dpen aloza(a)santa-ana.org Councilmember Jose Solorio, iSolorio(a.santa-ana.orq Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(a Santa-ana.orq Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, ciglesias(a Santa-ana.org Clerk of Council Daisy Gomez, dgomez(d.)santa-ana.orq City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, Esq., scarvalho cDsanta-ana.org Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development Chris Lee (Agent for Service of Process for AC 2525 Main, LLC) 240 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lloyd Joseph Adams (Agent for Service of Process for Discovery Science Center of Orange County) 2500 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Attachment / Enclosure 4398.101 / 8550922.1 State of Cellfomis - Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT 4' DFW 753,5a (Rev. a1101118) Previously DFG 753.5a r u fi 30-2019 1138 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (ff apOcable) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY. 2018021031 LEADAGENCY LEADAGENCY EMAIL DATE CITY OF SANTA ANA 11/2012019 COUNTYISTATE AGENCY OF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER Orange 201985001169 PROJECTTITLE 2525 N. MAIN STREET MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONE NUMBER AC 2525 MAIN LLC. (714)667-2740 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 2525 MAIN STREET SANTA ANA CA 92705 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box) I] Local Puhllc Agency 0 School District Other Special District State Agency [✓7 Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES © Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,271.00 $ 3,271,00 ❑ MitlgatedlNegative Declaration (MND)(NO) $2.354.75 $ ().()0 ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) $1,112.00 $ 0.00 ❑ Exampt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) ❑ CDFW No Effeol Delerminallan (a0ach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously Issued cash receipt copy) ❑ Water Right Application or PetlBun Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ 0.00 [j] County documemary handling fee $ 50.00 ❑ Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit ❑ Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ 3,321 .00 SIGMAIURE GENCY OF FILING PRIN I tU NAMI. ANU I I I Lk -- DIANNA VELASQUEZ, DEPUTY CLERK ORIOINAL. PROJECT APPLICANT COPY. CDFYWA5B COPY -LEAS AGENCY COPY- COUE7IY CLERK DPW 751.5a(Rev, 2051215) MAYOR ' Miguel A. Pulldo MAYOR PRO TEM Juan villages COUNCILMEMBERS Cecilia Iglesias David Penaloza Vicente Sarmlento Jose Solorlo FILED NOV 2 0 2019 BRAN CLERK-R ORDERUEPARTMENI .DEPUTY CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 CIVIC Center Plaza . P.O. Box igae Santa Ana, California 92702 yak aanta-ana.oro NOTICE OF DETERMINATION m v x� CITY MANAGER Kristine Rldgu CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Daisy Gomez TC- ❑ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 FROM: City of Sant Santa a Ana Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 20 Civic Center Plaza Orange County Clerk Recorder Santa Ana, CA 92702 Box 238 San Santa Ana, CA 92702.0238 Contact: Selena Keleher Phone: (714) 667.2740 SublOct: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21152 or the Public Resources Code Project Title: 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Realdentlai Project State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031 Applicant (Name and Address): AC 2925 Main LLC 25zS rJ , A^r� umber. 2017-34 Project Location: 2525 N. Main Street T S i Oi 9.27I74 City: Santa Ana County: Orange Project Description: The project will demolish the existing office building and develop a 266-un@ multi -family residential development and parking on the site. The project includes a lot line adjustment to create two separate tots; one parcel for residential use and one parcel for shared parking with the Discovery Cube. The residential lot will Ina approximately 4.4 acres In size and the shared parking lot parcel will be approximately 1.4 acres and contain 180 parking spaces, The 266 multi -family units will be In structures between 2 and 4 stories in height. Residential packing will be In a have one level of underground parking arid nd 5levels above groun surface parking lot and a parking structure that d parking. Approximately 25,947-square feet Of common open apace will be provided adjacent to the residential bull The residences will be at a density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The project Includes approximately 444,534 square feet of development (277,281 square feet of residential building and 167,253 square feet of parking structure and common open space structures). The maximum floor area ratio will be 1.43. The project Will retain the healthy trees along the east property line and the trees along the southern property lines. The project Includes an elongated four-way intersection at Main Street and Santiago ParkNyolkie Way. This will result In an off -set Intersection design, alterations to the northbound left-tum pocket for the Discovery Cube, and modifications to the traffic flow on Main Street. Modifications will be made to the existing raised center median on Main Street (from Edgewood Road to Santiago Park/Walkia Way) to provide turn pockets of approximately 200 feet, which Is more than the existing approximately 150-foot-long turn pockets. On November 19, 2019, the City Council of the City Of Santa Ana (Lead Agency) has: • Adopted a resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031). adopting findings of fact pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2018.01, as amended; • Adopted a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06: and • Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2018-10 for Specific Development No. 93. SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL 21 Miguel A. Pulido Juan Villegas Vicente aennlento David Pe,lalWa Meyer Mayor Pro Tam, Ward 6 dose rd.1 u doe 6,xe IviO000vehn'.ane— ,•-......WeNt__. Wmd2 Ward3 u,�.�; Ceage lgloaiae 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Residential Project Notice of Determination Page 2 of 2 1. The project will have a significant effect on the environment. project will NOT have a significant effect on the environment JThe An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certifled for thisproject pursuant to the provisbna of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the City of SantaA Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisionsof CEQAand reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Ana. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Ana. 3. ® Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. ❑ 4. ® Mitigation measures were NOT made a condition of the approval of the project. A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was adopted for this project. ❑ A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was NOT adopted for this project. 5. ® r ❑ A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was NOT adopted for this project � . ® Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ Findings were NOT made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This Is to certify that the final EIR, along with the clarifications to the final EIR with comments and responses, the technical appendices to the draft EIR, and the record of project approval, are available at: City of Santa Ans Planning Division, 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92702: signature Date Title County Clerk: Please post for 30 days In accordance with Section 21152(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act. POSTED NOV 2 0 2019 ORANGE C UNT CL •RECO ER DEPARTMENT NY; DEPUTY FILED NOV 2 0 2019 ORANGE COUNTVLY RR•RECOR RDEPARTMENT aYl­ ,_DEPUTY Miguel A Node Jon villages wool. sarnianla Devld Panalom Jose Solouo Vacant Comelgleal" MayorMayor Ward word Ward 3 . Word �eI iW�nrtlge1llfldoftiMlleaevedZ� @ ena,om w` wZ ga 3 J L.0 -J Z❑ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Viola R. Fennell, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Orange County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within -entitled action. My business address is 895 Dove Street, Fifth Floor, Newport Beach, California 92660. On December 17, 2019, 1 served a copy of the within document(s): DECEMBER 17, 2019 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CEQA PETITION Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (the "Addington") Located at 2525 N. Main Street Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) ❑X by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with Certified Mail postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Newport Beach, California addressed as set forth below. by causing First Legal Attorney Service to personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. 0 by transmitting via my electronic service address (Viola.Fennell@ndif.com) the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 17, 2019, at Newport Beach, California. r Viola R. Fennell 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 =w 13 Wr wZ 14 O A- J 15 w_ ZO 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST City of Santa Ana & Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Fax: 714-647-6954 E-mail: citycouncil(a)santa-ana.org Mayor Miguel Pulido, mpulido(oD.santa-ana.orq Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, ivillegas(a�santa ana.orq Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza(a)santa-ana.orq Councilmember Jose Solorio, iSolorio(a Santa-ana.orq Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(aDsanta-ana.orq Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, cialesias(a)santa-ana.org Clerk of Council Daisy Gomez dgomezpsanta-ana.org City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, Esq., scarvalho(a.Santa-ana.om Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development Chris Lee (Agent for Service of Process for AC 2525 Main, LLC) 240 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lloyd Joseph Adams (Agent for Service of Process for Discovery Science Center of Orange County) 2500 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 -2- Salas, Diana From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:46 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: December 17th City Council Meeting - the Addington Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.org 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza J Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. -----Original Message ----- From: Loretta Bult [mailto:lorbult@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:12 AM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org> Subject: December 17th City Council Meeting - the Addington Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: I do hope all legal points will be addressed and satisfied for the Mayor and City Council. I stand firm in support of this project. Reasons: These are upscale apartments, geared to professional people who will add value to our community. There will be increased safety for all of Park Santiago. We have a developer who is sensitive to our community needs and who has demonstrated this by making a multitude of changes from the original plan. Throughout this process, and regardless of your position, I certainly respect the effort and courage you have demonstrated to do the "right thing" for Santa Ana. Sincerely, Loretta Bult 2506 N Spurgeon St, Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas, Diana From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:46 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Request that Council pull the two ordinances in 11A(1) and (2) pertaining to 2525 North Main Street from the 12-17-2019 Consent Calendar for further discussion before second reading and final voting Kind Regards, Nicole Houston i Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhouston@santa-ana.orx 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 2020 SANTA ANA COUNTS This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Ellen Koldewey [mailto:mrskold@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 7:42 PM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <JVillegas@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa- ana.org> Subject: Request that Council pull the two ordinances in 11A(1) and (2) pertaining to 2525 North Main Street from the 12-17-2019 Consent Calendar for further discussion before second reading and final voting Greetings Mayor Pulido, Mayor Pro Tem Villegas, and Councilmember Bacerra, As your constituent and a Santa Ana voter, I respectfully object to the inclusion of Items IIA (1) and (2) in the Consent Calendar on the December 17, 2019 Council agenda.I I also object to the final adoption of these ordinances by Council on second reading withoutfurther informed discussion. The Consent Calendar should be reserved for "routine " items that can appropriately be enacted by one motion without discussion. With due respect, as a result of information that has become part of the record at or after the last Council meeting on December 3, 2019, that is not the case here. The final votes on adoption of the Development Agreement and Zoning Amendment for 2525 North Main Street are still clearly not routine and still must not be enacted with other agenda items by a single motion without further discussion. Therefore, I request that Council pull the two ordinances in 11A (1) and (2) from the consent calendar for further discussion before voting. Thank you for your consideration and your continued service to our City. Respectfully submitted, Mrs. Ellen Koldewey Santa Ana CA 92706 714 785-8029/542-2122 Here is the additional information that has recently become available that may inform your vote. 1) At the December 3, 2019 City Council meeting, a two week continuance was granted to review the deficiencies of the Development Agreement pointed out by concerned neighbors. The resulting City Staff Report shows review/adoption of some of the recommended nonsubstantive changes. 2 Before the City agrees to be bound by the still flawed Development Agreement, urge you to allow City Staff and the City Attorney additional time to complete a thorough substantive review of the Development Agreement to reach a better bargain for your constituents. 2) Since the last Council Meeting on December 3, 2019, the local paper of record, the Orange County Register published an informative series of articles on our state's housing crisis and the adequacy of the response of local cities and towns to that crisis. These articles provide current comparative housing data showing that Santa Ana has consistently led Orange County in permitting the building of sufficient high density housing at all income levels throughout our City to satisfy statewide requirements for addressing the regional housing crisis. Based on the data in these articles, it is not clear tome that there is still a compelling justification for building any more high density luxury housing projects in this City that would warrant spot zoning or rezoning of this particular parcel of land. Rather, based on the collected data, the newspaper gives Santa Ana a high grade for fall compliance (A+) with statewide requirements for permitting of construction of new high density residential units at all income levels to address the statewide housing crisis and homelessness. s Before Council adopts the zoning amendment ordinance, request that you review available current housing data to determine if the statewide housing crisis provides a compelling justification for the construction of additional high density luxury housing units in Santa Ana, and specifically, for this high density residential complex at this particular location. 3) Also, please review carefully the information provided at and after the last Council Meeting that the 2525 North Main Street property has fallen into disrepair and reportedly has become an unsafe haven for homeless people, and that, therefore, the current agreement and zoning amendment should be approved. I do not believe that current reported neglect of the property, if any, provides a compelling justification for voting for this development agreement or zoning amendment. Rather, if true, such reports may demonstrate the continued need for our City to more vigorously enforce the provisions of the building and safety code against the current property owner. 4) Finally and respectfully, please investigate the apparent allegations regarding the integrity of the current public process made on the record by your colleagues at the last Council meeting before proceeding with the final vote. I agree with those Council members who cautioned their constituents on November 19, 2019 that the strongest arguments for a development are generally those made on the merits of the project and that no one, including the developer, should be penalized based on mere allegations. However, I do not think we can responsibly ignore the remarks made about this sensitive subject on the public record by members of the City Council on December 3, 2019. Therefore, while you still have the chance to make any needed corrections in the development process, I implore every member of the City Council to seek an impartial review by the City Attorney or other appropriate authority of the apparent allegations made on the public record by Mayor Pro Tem. Villegas and Councilmember Inglesias at the December 3, 2019 Council meeting. Please publicly confirm your satisfaction with the integrity of our City's public process for yourselves and your constituents before the final vote is taken. 4 Then, if, after considering all of this additional information, as City leaders, you still believe that not building this high density luxury apartment complex in this particular neighborhood would result in treating other neighborhoods unfairly, I again ask you to let all of the voters of Santa Ana decide. Send the zoning amendment ordinance to a City Wide referendum in a special election. Don't burden your constituents with the enormous responsibility of sending the ordinance 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 determine whether to build this project. Alternatively, I request that those of you who supported the project on November 19, 2019 and continued the matter on December 3, now reconsider and oppose rather than adopt these two ordinances. There is ample evidence in the present record to do so. If you carefully review the information presented at the City Council Meetings on November 19 and December 3, 2019 , I 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 again voting on 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.) I believe that the Zoning Amendment requires unwarranted spot zoning with no compelling justification. 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. I IA 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) —Planning and Building Agency Placed on first reading at the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting and approved by a vote of 43 (Bacerra, Pulido and Villegas dissented). Published in the Orange County Reporter on November 22, 2019. Continued on December 3, 2019. RECOMMENDED ACTION. • Place ordinances on second reading and adopt. 1. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2018-01 BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65864, ET SEQ. 2. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL (P) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) (AA NO. 2018-10) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 93 (SD-93) FOR SAID PROPERTY 2 See https://santana.granicus.com,/MetaViewer oho?view id=2&event id=8253&meta id=104620 (Ex.1la, pages 1-5, including Exhibit 1) for Santa Ana's City Staff Report recommendations accompanying present agenda item in I IA (1) regarding Development Agreement changes recommended by constituents at the December 3, 2019 Council Meeting. 3 See https://santaana.granicus.com/MediaP]aVer.l)hp?view id=2&clip id=2549&meta id=103663 ;A related exchange can be found at roughly the 2 hour and 12 minute mark to roughly 2 hour and 20 minute mark. In this exchange, Councilmember Cecelia Inglesias also spoke about the possible involvement of a particular organization. The Mayor Pro Tern then makes statements regarding "dark money" behind real estate development and politics in the City at hour 2:16 and roughly 40 seconds See also: htti)s://voiceofoc.orp/2019/12/santa-ana-councilman-publicly-calls-out-dark-money-campaign-welcomes-fbi-interview/ See "There's no housing shortage in California, Chapman forecast suggests Tame real estate outlook tied to limited population growth, slower hiring pace, aging owners by JONATHAN LANSNER I ilansner(&�scng.com Orange Counri Register httus'//www ocregister.com/2019/UI0/chap na rforecast- s-cal"fi-h - ho taee-a- imoc1 PUBLISHED: December 10, 2019 at 8:00 am UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 6:14 pm See "Can Southern California build 1.34 million homes in a decade? City leaders are grappling with the state recommendation as one city councilman foresees "concrete everywhere." By ALICIA ROBINSON I arobinson(&r,scng.com and JEFF COLLINS 1 JeffCollins(a),,seng.co I The Orange County Register, PUBLISHED: December 10, 2019 at 8:00 am I UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 11:14 am See "California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits 2018 data shows most California cities got a failing grade in permitting new homes." California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA oermitsPUBLISHED: December 9, 2019 at 7:40 am I UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 6:37 pm See "Housing permit report card: How we graded every city, county in California," By NIKIE JOHNSON niiohnson(o)scng.com I The Orange County Register am hgps•//www ocregister com/2019/12/09/housing-permit-report-card- how-we-graded-every-city-county-in-califomia/ PUBLISHED: December 9, 2019 at 7:40 am I UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 8:36 December 17, 2017 Mayor and City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 CONCERNING: Item 11A: 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 Mayor Pulido and City Council — It would be unfortunate for the Council to move forward and approve the proposed 2525 N. Main Street project. In recent years, there has been no other project so vehemently opposed than this project. I have seen only a handful of items over the last 35 years that haven energized the community so much. It remains a curiosity why the cogent, precise, and heartfelt wishes to prevent project are being discounted or ignored. This high density project is unwanted and will not be a plus for Santa Ana. The proposed actions represent a miscarriage of the public process if the long standing zoning of the proposed site is approved. I urge you to consider the idea of asking the voters to decide this matter given the community's deep and broad interest in this precedent setting project. The City Manager and City Attorney can explain how this mechanism would work. It will be long remembered where you each stood in this conflict between developer greed and the interests of Santa Ana residents. We will work tirelessly with others to remind voters from this day forward until the first Tuesday of November 2020 about your respective positions. Please side with the residents. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration Sincerely, Rob Richardson 2336 Oakmont Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas. Diana From: Flores, Rosa Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:20 AM To: eComment Cc: Houston, Nicole; Cruz, Yesenia; Morris, Angie Subject: FW: December 17th City Council Meeting - the Addington FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Loretta Bult [mailto:lorbult@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:12 AM To: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@santa-ana.org> Subject: December 17th City Council Meeting - the Addington Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: I do hope all legal points will be addressed and satisfied for the Mayor and City Council. I stand firm in support of this project. Reasons: These are upscale apartments, geared to professional people who will add value to our community. There will be increased safety for all of Park Santiago. We have a developer who is sensitive to our community needs and who has demonstrated this by making a multitude of changes from the original plan. Throughout this process, and regardless of your position, I certainly respect the effort and courage you have demonstrated to do the 'right thing" for Santa Ana. Sincerely, Loretta Bult 2506 N Spurgeon St, Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas, Diana From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Council Member Sarmiento, Darcie L. Cancino <darcielc@gmail.com> Monday, December 16, 2019 6:38 PM Sarmiento, Vicente eComment Opposed to 2525 N. Main St. This is another plea to ask you once again to deny the development agreement for the parcel located at 2525 N. Main St. This development: • remains too dense at 58 DUA, • is disharmonious with the existing neighborhood, • does not comport with the City General Plan, • requires the closure of a public park entrance, • will generate significant traffic congestion and create safety concerns on Main Street, and • will result in an explosion of cut -through traffic on Park Santiago streets. Santa Ana residents, not only those of Park Santiago, remain overwhelmingly opposed to this project. Please respect the clear will of the constituents of the City of Santa Ana, as well as the decision your Planning Commission has made twice and reject this proposal. Respectfully, Mrs. Darcie L. Cancino 909 E. Grovemont St. Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas, Diana From: Darcie L. Cancino <darcielc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 6:39 PM To: Penaloza, David Cc: eComment Subject: Opposed to 2525 N. Main St. Development Agreement Council Member Penaloza, This is another plea to ask you once again to deny the development agreement for the parcel located at 2525 N. Main St. This development: • remains too dense at 58 DUA, • is disharmonious with the existing neighborhood, • does not comport with the City General Plan, • requires the closure of a public park entrance, • will generate significant traffic congestion and create safety concerns on Main Street, and • will result in an explosion of cut -through traffic on Park Santiago streets. Santa Ana residents, not only those of Park Santiago, remain overwhelmingly opposed to this project. Please respect the clear will of the constituents of the City of Santa Ana, as well as the decision your Planning Commission has made twice and reject this proposal. Respectfully, Mrs. Darcie L. Cancino 909 E. Grovemont St. Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas, Diana From: Darcie L. Cancino <darcielc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 6:40 PM To: Iglesias, Cecilia Cc: eComment Subject: Opposed to 2525 N. Main St. Development Agreement Council Member Iglesias, This is another plea to ask you once again to deny the development agreement for the parcel located at 2525 N. Main St. This development: • remains too dense at 58 DUA, • is disharmonious with the existing neighborhood, • does not comport with the City General Plan, • requires the closure of a public park entrance, • will generate significant traffic congestion and create safety concerns on Main Street, and • will result in an explosion of cut -through traffic on Park Santiago streets. Santa Ana residents, not only those of Park Santiago, remain overwhelmingly opposed to this project. Please respect the clear will of the constituents of the City of Santa Ana, as well as the decision your Planning Commission has made twice and reject this proposal. Respectfully, Mrs. Darcie L. Cancino 909 E. Grovemont St. Santa Ana, CA 92706 Salas, Diana From: Darcie L. Cancino <darcielc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 6:41 PM To: Solorio, Jose Cc: eComment Subject: Opposed to 2525 N. Main St. Development Agreement Council Member Solorio, This is another plea to ask you to deny the development agreement for the parcel located at 2525 N. Main St. This development: • remains too dense at 58 DUA, • is disharmonious with the existing neighborhood, • does not comport with the City General Plan, • requires the closure of a public park entrance, • will generate significant traffic congestion and create safety concerns on Main Street, and • will result in an explosion of cut -through traffic on Park Santiago streets. Santa Ana residents, not only those of Park Santiago, remain overwhelmingly opposed to this project. Please respect the clear will of the constituents of the City of Santa Ana, as well as the decision your Planning Commission has made twice, and reject this proposal. Respectfully, Mrs. Darcie L. Cancino 909 E. Grovemont St. Santa Ana, CA 92706 5alas, Diana From: Tara Franklin <sftaraf@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:31 AM To: eComment Subject: 2525 Please don't rezone 2525 Main. Stand up for Santa Ana residents. Thank you Salas, Diana From: Karyn Igar <karyn.igar@gmaitcom> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 9:05 PM To: eComment; eComment Subject: 12/17/19 City Council Meeting- please reconsider 2525 N. Main Dear City Council- You have one more chance on Tuesday 12/17/19 to make a good decision on the 2525 N. Main project. You know that the neighborhood group is challenging the EIR for the project, and it's not going to hold up because the intersection/crosswalk north of Edgewood was not evaluated for safety. So please consider saving the City some money by not trying to defend the indefensible. The end result is going to be that the EIR is not adequate. It is best for everybody to just acknowledge that at the 12/17/19 council meeting, and not move the project forward. Thank you, Karyn Igar 2501 Oakmont Ave. Salas, Diana From: Lisa Ganz <laganz@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 5:52 PM To: Iglesias, Cecilia; Penaloza, David; Sarmiento, Vicente; Solorio, Jose; eComment Subject: 2nd Reading of 2525 Main: Please vote NO Too many life units have been spent on this project. Please support the community and oppose this development. Thank you. Lisa Ganz - resident in Santa Ana. Salas, Diana From: volker schwarz <vcIker9@gmaiI.ccm> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 8:30 PM To: ecomment Subject: 2S25 Please believe what the residents of Park Santiago and Santa Ana are trying to say NO NO NO on 2525 Main Street ---- the only way to go. Thanks Volker Schwarz Salas, Diana From: Randilyn Rossignol <rnr979@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 2:53 PM To: eComment Subject: OPPOSITION TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 2525 MAIN STREET SANTA ANA Hello, I am a resident who has lived in Santa Ana for 40 years on East Santa Clara Ave, in Park Santiago. This development proposal is something that I strongly oppose in all aspects. As a resident, taxpayer , and citizen of the United States of America, I would ask that you respect not only my opposition but t he overwhelming opposition of the people of our community. Not only will it greatly impact traffic (incl uding impacting the hospital on Main Street as well as residents in this area and neighboring commun ities), it will hinder the environment and ecological system by adding more people, degrade the nature preserve, and increase crime. The residential - development proposal is absolutely unacceptable and wrong, because it goes against the will of the majority of our people. If this goes through it will degrade the integrity and preservation of our beautiful Park Santiag o neighborhood. Please respect our voices and do NOT vote yes for this proposition. I, along with my community, have made Santa Ana my home, a nd am law-abiding voter who is expecting to be heard and respected. Sincerely, Randilyn Rossignol Salas, Diana From: bart beach <bartonabeach@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 9:27 PM To: eComment Please vote NO to rezoning at2525 N. Main Street. Sent from my iPad Salas, Diana From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 11:59 AM To: eComment Cc: Pulido; Miguel; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Solorio, Jose; Iglesias, Cecilia; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil; Ridge, Kristine, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Gomez, Daisy Subject: Subject: Items 11 A (1) and (2) Consent Calendar (Second Reading Ordinances 2525 North Main Street) City Council Meeting Tuesday 12-17-2019 Greetings Mayor Pulido and Councilmembers, As your constituent and a Santa Ana voter, I respectfully object to the inclusion of Items 11A (1) and (2) in the Consent Calendar on the December 17, 2019 Council agenda.i 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, as a result of information that has become part of the record at or after the last Council meeting on December 3, 2019, that is not the case here. The final votes on adoption of the Development Agreement and Zoning Amendment for 2525 North Main Street are still clearly not routine and still must not be enacted with other agenda items 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. Here is the additional information that has recently become available that may inform your vote. 1) At the December 3, 2019 City Council meeting, a two week continuance was granted to review the deficiencies of the Development Agreement pointed out by concerned neighbors. The resulting City Staff Report shows review/adoption of some of the recommended nonsubstantive changes. 2 Before the City agrees to be bound by the still flawed Development Agreement, I urge you to allow City Staff and the City Attorney additional time to complete a thorough substantive review of the Development Agreement to reach a better bargain for your constituents. 2) Since the last Council Meeting on December 3, 2019, the local paper of record, the Orange County Register, published an informative series of articles on our state's housing crisis and the adequacy of the response of local cities and towns to that crisis. These articles provide current comparative housing data showing that Santa Ana has consistently led Orange County in permitting the building of sufficient high density housing at all income levels throughout our City to satisfy statewide requirements for addressing the regional housing crisis. Based on the data in these articles, it is not clear to me that there is still a compelling justification for building any more high density luxury housing projects in this City that would warrant spot zoning or rezoning of this particular parcel of land. Rather, based on the collected data, the newspaper gives Santa Ana a high grade for full compliance (A+) with statewide requirements for permitting of construction of new high density residential units at all income levels to address the statewide housing crisis and homelessness. 3 Before Council adopts the zoning amendment ordinance, I request that you review available current housing data to determine if the statewide housing crisis provides a compelling justification for the construction of additional high density luxury housing units in Santa Ana, and specifically, for this high density residential complex at this particular location. 3) Also, please review carefully the information provided at and after the last Council Meeting that the 2525 North Main Street property has fallen into disrepair and reportedly has become an unsafe haven for homeless people, and that, therefore, the current agreement and zoning amendment should be approved. I do not believe that current reported neglect of the property, if any, provides a compelling justification for voting for this development agreement or zoning amendment. Rather, if true, such reports may demonstrate the continued need for our City to more vigorously enforce the provisions of the building and safety code against the current property owner. 4) Finally and respectfully, please investigate the apparent allegations regarding the integrity of the current public process made on the record by your colleagues at the last Council meeting before proceeding with the final vote. I agree with those Council members who cautioned their constituents on November 19, 2019 that the strongest arguments for a development are generally those made on the merits of the project and that no one, including the developer, should be penalized based on mere allegations. However, I do not think we can responsibly ignore the remarks made about this sensitive subject on the public record by members of the City Council on December 3, 2019. Therefore, while you still have the chance to make any needed corrections in the development process, implore every member of the City Council to seek an impartial review by the City Attorney or other appropriate authority of the apparent allegations made on the public record by Mayor Pro Tom Villegas and Councilmember Inglesias at the December 3, 2019 Council meeting. Please publicly confirm your satisfaction with the integrity of our City's public process for yourselves and your constituents before the final vote is taken. 4 Then, if, after considering all of this additional information, as City leaders, you still believe that not building this high density luxury apartment complex in this particular neighborhood would result in treating other neighborhoods unfairly, I again ask you to let all of the voters of Santa Ana decide. Send the zoning amendment ordinance to a City Wide referendum in a special election. Don't burden your constituents with the enormous responsibility of sending the ordinance 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 determine whether to build this project. Alternatively, I request that those of you who supported the project on November 19, 2019 and continued the matter on December 3, now reconsider and oppose rather than adopt these two ordinances. There is ample evidence in the present record to do so. If you carefully review the information presented at the City Council Meetings on November 19 and December 3, 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 again voting on 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.) I believe that the Zoning Amendment requires unwarranted spot zoning with no compelling justification. 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 consideration and your continued service to our City. Respectfully submitted, Mrs. Ellen Koldewey Santa Ana CA 92706 1 11A ORDINANCE SECOND READING: APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 201 M1 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)— eading at the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting and approved by a vote of 4-3 (Bacerra, Pulido and Villegas Planning and Building Agency Placed on first r dissented). Published in the Orange County Reporter on November 22, 2019. Continued on December 3, 2019. RECOMMENDED ACTION., Place ordinances on second reading and adopt. 1. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2979 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.2018-01 BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND AC 2525 MAIN, LLC FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65864, ET SEQ. 2. ORDINANCE NO. NS-2980 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2018-10 REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET FROM PROFESSIONAL NO 9 O SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT(SD 3) FOR SAID PROPERTY 93 (SD-93) (AA NO.2018-10) AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT 2 See https //santana oranicus com /MetaViewer. Dhp?view id=2&event id=8253&meta_id=104620 (Ex.11 a, pages 1- , rt recommendations accompanying present agenda item in 11A (1) including Exhibit 1) for Santa Ana's City Staff Repo ded by constituents at the December 3, 2019 Council Meeting. regarding Development Agreement changes recommen 3 view id=2&cli id=2549&meta id=103663 ;A related exchange See htt s://santaana. rgnicus.com/MediaPla er. h can be found at roughly the 2 hour and 12 minute mark to roughly 2 hour and 20 minute mark. In this exchange, Councilmember Cecelia Inglesias also spoke about the possible involvement of a particular organization. The Mayor Pro Tern then makes statements regarding "dark money" behind real estate development and politics in the City at hour 2:16 and roughly 40 seconds See also: htips://voiceofoe.org/2019/12/santa-ana-councilman-publicly-calls-out-dark-money-campaign-welcomes-fbi- interview/ 4 See "There's no housing shortage in California, Chapman forecast suggests Tame real estate outlook tied to limited population growth, slower hiring pace, aging owners by JONATHAN LANSNER I jlansner@scng.com I Orange County Register httos://www.ocreciister com/2019/12/10/chaoman forecast iscalifomias housing shortage a mvaae/ PUBLISHED: December 10, 2019 at 8:00 am I UPDATED. December 10, 2019 at 6:14 pm See "Can Southern California build 1.34 million homes in a decade? City leaders are grappling with the state recommendation as one city councilman foresees "concrete everywhere." By ALICIA ROBINSON I arobinson@scng.com and JEFF COLLINS I JeffCollins@scng.com I The Orange County Register PUBLISHED: December 10, 2019 at 8:00 am UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 11:14 am See "California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits 2018 data shows most California cities got a failing grade in permitting new homes." httos://www.ocreoister com/2019/12/09/losino-the rhna battle 97 of cities counties fail- to-meet-state-housing-goals/PUBLlSHED: December 9, 2019 at 7:40 am I UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 6:37 pm See "Housing permit report card: How we graded every city, county in California," By NIKIE JOHNSON nijohnson@scng.com I The Orange County Register am https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/housing-permit-report-card- how-we-graded-every-city-county-in-califomia/ PUBLISHED: December 9, 2019 at 7:40 am I UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 8:36 Diana From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:29 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2525 Main Street vote Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Officel nhoustonasanta-ana ore 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza l Santa Ana, CA 92701 2020 SAN1A ANA COUNTS This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Sandy DeAngelis [mailto:sandytdeangelis@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 11:03 AM To: Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@sa nta-a na.o rg> Cc: Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Dale Helvig <NSAPAinfo@gmail.com>; Ed Murashie <emurashie@att.net> Subject: 2525 Main Street vote Vince, David and Ceci, I am respectively taking this last ditch effort to plead with you to vote against the project at 2525 Main Street! Please vote NO! I have been a resident of Santa Ana since 1986 and I have seen many changes in the City. The Project at 2525 Main Street is the worst idea ever. Please reconsider your vote! 1. The project, even in its reduced state, is not appropriate or reasonable for the location. Re -zoning is a very bad precedent and opens the doors to other developers building multi unit developments immediately next to our neighborhoods. 2. There are already 6,000 apartments in process within 2 miles of 2525 Main Street. (some are in process of construction, some are already built out, and some are approved and will be built within the future. 3. This project has the worst planning for traffic and the highest impact on a neighborhood of all of them. 4. 1 have stated that the value of homes backing to and near the 2525 project will decrease up to 20% as a result of this project and had that information verified by 2 licensed appraiser who work in this area. 5. 1 am actually stunned that you have chosen to vote for this project. And I do plead with you to reconsider your vote. 6. As you know, the North end of Santa Ana has a very high voter turn out and a long memory. I realize that most of you will not read this letter and none will have the courage to respond, but I must try to reach out to you one more time (futile though the effort may be) to say please listen to your constituents. The mere fact that the developer would offer $35,000 to homeowners who back to the development is criminal. Surely this must point out to you how disastrous even they know this project is to the neighborhood and to the City. Sincerly, Sandy DeAngelis 2121 Victoria Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 FLORAL PARK is vehemently against this projectlll Diana 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) ►14 JUSTIFICATION FOR A CONTIUANCE TO JANUARY OF 2020 Suspicious Activity (Smoke) • Multiple Recommendations of Denial by Planning Commission. • First reading of development approvals in November (before Thanksgiving). • Second reading of development approvals in December (before Christmas). • Debate between Councilmembers over 60, 45, 30, or 15 day continuance. • Public plea for law enforcement to investigate by Vice Mayor and further acknowledgement of dark money by Councilwoman Iglecias. • Second reading re -set 1 week prior to Christmas. • Ongoing investigation by Fair Political Practices Commission into dark money contributions in Santa Ana. • Requests for investigation by FBI and State Attorney being made by neighbors. • Significant and ongoing media interest. Known Outcomes of Yes Vote • Referendum drive. • Litigation (on -record acknowledgement by Councilmember of defects in CEQA review, substantial record evidence of inconsistency in General Plan and selected zoning, charter violations, Brown Act violations). • Significant waste of City resources (staff time/closed session meetings). • Recall Petitions. Flaws in Development Agreement/At least get a better deal. • Staff has not adequately addressed substantive legal and business issues associated with the development agreement. • Requests for a pedestrian bridge to accommodate museum parking onsite were responded to by staff asserting that the intersection meets the Code's minimum requirements. The developer has asked for a General Plan amendment and rezoning and is entitled to neither. The City can do better. • Agreement allows for sale or assignment to museum without requiring compliance with the Development Agreement (Section 2.5.5). • Development agreement still allows 2 years of extensions for $100,000 despite a projected revenue shortfall in excess of $900k. Buildout should be completed within two (2) years. Alternatively, developer should be required to reimburse City for projected loss of revenue after two years. • Project Art valued at 0.5%of construction cost. No City Council review, no metrics given. Response indicates this will be approved administratively during plan review. This is unacceptable. • Periodic review provision by City and developer's responsibility to implement CCRs still ambiguous, no metrics or meaningful criteria given, no financial penalties provided for non-compliance. • Development agreement still allows phased development at developer's discretion (could lead to a massive mound of dirt onsite) (Section 3.5). • City Attorney charged with "approving" CCRs (Section 3.6.2). This is a Charter violation. Section 703 of the Charter only allows for approval of the form of resolutions and ordinances and the form of bonds and contracts made by the City. The City Attorney does not have authority to approve third party CCRs. • Ambiguity on expenditure of park funds/controls/timing. Poor deal -developer can construct for less. SANTA ANA CHARTER EXCERPT • Sec. 703. — City Attorney; qualifications, power and duties. To become eligible for the position of City Attorney the person appointed shall be an attorney -at - law duly licensed as such under the laws of the State of California. He shall devote such time to the duties of his office as may be specified in the ordinance or resolution fixing the compensation of such office. He shall have the power and be required to: (a) Represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices; (b) Attend all meetings of the City Council and give his advice or opinion in writing whenever requested to do so by the City Council or by any of the officers and boards of the City; (c) Prepare or approve all proposed ordinances or resolutions for the City, and amendments thereto; (d) Prosecute on behalf of the people such criminal cases for violation of this charter, or City ordinances, and of misdemeanor offenses and infractions arising upon violations of the laws of the state as in his opinion, or that of the City Council, or of the City Manager, warrant his attention; (e) Represent and appear for the City, any City officer or employee, or former City officer or employee, in any or all actions and proceedings in which the City or any such officer or employee, in or by reason of his official capacity, is concerned or is a party, (f) Approve the form of all bonds given to, and all contracts made by, the City, endorsing his approval thereon in writing; (g) On vacating the office, surrender to his successor all books, papers, files, and documents pertaining to the City's affairs. The City Council shall have control of all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or matter or to assist the City Attorney therein. >,..: Block wall and valve obstructs view ofto crosswalk A r M s Driver's line of sight i r without obstructions " M - I Pedestrians within this portion of the Z crosswalk are not visible to drivers ,rt until after they have started turning. i ,r Line -of -Sight for drivers turning right out of Discover Cube exit at new intersection ATTACHMENT 2 A 12 of 12 r Y 0 G 0 C 7 C 0 m O y Y O L b0 -0 Y O > u N OJ Y N C o 0 o J Z .0 V i+ C� G 0 v L Q Y C C� C 0- 0 0 L Y 0 0 Ln 0 0 m !6 Q C G 0 L 4Y. C 0 Y L 0 4- C 0 U Y+ U1 N N U') C .c@ G N z a N r t: cm O N r j yL 7 e = Qc c N O -°aoi� p«. a. 0 Nmcc� ®O' is 'CuoimEO Z t@twC:) E® c a 3 aiilcrois®o'a -0 oo@o L C m m 0 CM C@ C .0 0 o >, m E N L .6 3 N a Z to m ,-. N o o N a-00EN a --@0 3�E° �G°) � eco NOaCmc a @mco O G _ V1 c c '° e3 E Nro+'e+ ) 0nsC C"e 00L me=m @ O m @E N m`° m,°-U 5E.oE Noemrn Qy«wE�'3°hoc rddn° cog m m -0 d c�ao)E g ; 0 (D M � `M ° R n+ a)1 0 r_ 4) w m Q m Noon@Q 7 m �mv� m@�, rna ? a)@Nc ��c @U a o� r m oyo)omr om�mY c oi3 H��@ @E�7 c ao�� c 0) NcU�chl-O e E 4= Mao Cs° _°0cE00� mt-o o ® O :0 E 'u= @ 0 a C. i "0 m @-c O A i O '0 r ro O m Ol @ 1 O L °ns�@y�a °) m m w° cZiUE� yOroLo s_o QacEN7 m-o ooc c- c o o E - a 0 N � 3 O ® u°+ C O U@ n N ?, '�" a l00 -� N ,� ae9 O C U —co O) O= C C p �.0 0 o c 0 E c m m m d v m ®'m- _ O- c ca c ®Fi'-m o@o E ro C) =0 co)roos aRo�yc@°�m U eeaQpO @ @ (Ctl m@ V ,'_C ® ',_--. m@ 65 " i L ® V T i .E W- 7 0 N@ N O C_ O @ y fj O° 0 N Q � O =� O N @ e O I a sY i w- C O O@@ i N E .Q "' ^" a C c ro C O a O l6 c 0, ® N 2 N 1 E N c 7 Gel 0) M N 'O N" .m. - R @ 0 a O O c ® ®y N m @ N E@@@ 9 C@ f%) 'O @ a ro S 'U = 61 N c a W C U ,L+ @ 3 +' U N f '" m® G i a m w 0) m y MA2a U) ® m ;O O .e 'o r @ N N .=. 0 !n N C « 0 0$ m@? U t2 L N Q U U u h .0 2 °) eta a s Q t C N@ N " E n EiCD 4 N >@ 8 Q- @ N C 0 (A C O C N° m 0 C ro' w Q® t N C a. E co "a C N I 6r m a 0IM0 Mc c ® � O)lp.-''E �� CL c_ ®�Ncc=E16 mC_oc C RI > O1 ® w .e U m t ,- 7 O O@ co O. O° .O w. - O Q @ O " e m @@ m N,- o rn > sCroa N° 0 cm o a=0. N=o a(34) ° °EaEw co L)m o 0'ac o0�0 s �' o �3m �N 5 C nN�°r@ms@ a aro E@o c8 o c c 7e`mocE.. ro@g®d N� �s @mc�rn vvQ .> �mo.a) d t0 @ t i 0:1A3 00.-L c iNm13 =E'-wco 0aE 0'OC Vm0 V9 c m fn m O>.@' yw @ rn@c0 C9M =, 0 m @ wo e � roEO C ro m A 0. 0 s y 2 0 c 0 0, @ V L@ 0@ m w 0 0 O- CO O N @ ro co C N W '�+ @ a 'O i N O C 7 1 n 3 N r 3 L ?i > C R e- o- N i .a) C~ C N co Q i O '+s N 0 m N 7 E m @ U G-0j O>. r- E O a d N _0 O) v- m p Y �, m 'C - O� 'a 0 @ - N w $r c@ c o m E A O ° a) c � Y�� o y rnS. e ro CL > w U ° m co 000a °pmoc a c -s_cm3 0 o E® oacme°@ E @N o @ E �' r- 'a- a N i m '� @ IM @ N 8- a) 3 co a) ='a 0.h c a ` o Y O N r @ O� m a@ @ 0 G m C o E a> N N E ,. a U c O ,L-• W @ U c NCO o' me o- E >d�roEoEaSc s oo _@ c�mo-3 roNyma�oNm c Exoro @@ 01 pj ro s c O> L w « D "O E - i O U= r r N w@ N W rn >va o c Q E coGOimc`aoia ® U cao0im> Cam° .°m>c�mcOr c Cps" aCo s �— o �w cv 0 rov0 s> @e w- E: orocN� @oE@mw a �y- o CON s® m U a@ c 0 m@ � O U Y o o� s e f a ro _ o ^� �c1, m o o ro m U �® ys.-=�a-roi� y E rn L..dr @°' m o Nos 0 -0 mrm-maw@ i a7 C c L C Cl) @ e N aJ H 0 9 ® O N O OIt W I :.1 6~0 C =I d C) C a1 w s ro N O@ -c Q® m c m ro @ m ros 0Ecc =c o 'E cV Q3 & @ mmcm-N- m o mo �» T >a 6) N '�' c C N .6 N O C m C@ m N-0 m M N O@ g 0 +'" h e i" U N E N W m L L n N T+ U m °n w � =c-mm 00 0 n o� Q0 UE �O.� a) a)0>c_mic > ®' o o a Gci�Ucctlmm Nst" = Ea 000 N$ �.°Uao(D aCDa=` °.�c oN N^ b @ O s c6 �` ',0- a Oi 0 0, 'O a o N o> L C .L' N CL 7 N 01 U j a_ ! '® (@mtl Q. m o .a E 3 N -C C m N C +�+ in ,C O la D a Q. ❑ iw r n C 0 9. °@ C@ N O a @ M@ O) C 0- U) O m O Ou @ 0 a. CCw ® O O m e r• m°' CYJ N N CL O!�' a. ®.C«. @@@ UCA ua m E'�ai c rn 0• o� oom? r ���@@ @oc m o�oc@mESio E cEr 49 S c@ m@*-coca m �, m�3®= c� 3,n 3f��o9Ei'®001w aiiAmaa)i`Gm m ® 0.c=mNN s® E Qpmia°,m U).LI . j�_�a3iM°.o agyo o (/�G C) O ci i6 @ m 0pN �t O. W 0 Y Nr00 NnC V�mXaGOjms 0cx me Ii_ I- 0 � Cc3 Q V O m1Z � O 2 r w0O am a, '03.0 050 N chi m N @ m N L '-yLNC�y�.N°.+ arLENmi aac) acj ro GNa NOyNCNu4y�gaNOO O O a) y ' 7 Z La> C YypRO CC) C y U ai awdOiCW7 yc raONa) z OD Jw�Owzdgm10 y c Q0 0. O 4' C 0 N ro 0)0 C Lroa) U WZ NN otiCCvo>dmNoE O a) 0) P U, O C C1N-, c cNC¢ OCN O y O E = N E `oN sO y OC a a) U0cU O O y>,yNCT �Z Zowaz N- oN'O > CD WWWO ooo No�� Em �)Cwwa > )03 N ¢c:O NC0 OroO w 0 OU E°Q- oC .�ro3t. Oy ZOvom m aco^ FD c).0 CLO 7 O _¢ WJN aa CCEo yCO > ��N c a)� N>oES .c ENEo� >mn >mdvmo oWZz�mo0 (D'Q3t—oy4' mo6 m zE�amE°nZaZ`ENmaCL w � o—ayo0>,��c ¢> 0)0)E > o ofo oa (voa)Din s 2, Oaw¢m CY a°Z ¢ C y E d cop N CcZaE o O=CaO roa C L ) m w CN U�NU-0 Q- a)O O0C) U 0Cco C- ¢�a2 a EO mrocp0zC)rC Na)roa0N E-Na nc NmCooa?o ond E E 3uEENO cE 0 ¢¢rz �c$°°_Om�>yJ NN�N E°F-�'ww°pNv�3 oymy € OD°O L°a �N wC_WOa E¢m¢Z om OO U C C°C C O co W Co (DQw a) -O (A C C ON NO LLW>ME wNOuEro 49 oL0)a) 700w cOm - . -a oUO¢U m i LD ID CU L rna 7 0 c N- $ N 7 y' O E_c N c C 7 Om o i� C y- a1 ) O N a) U .L- C o C 7 O N 0 4 N N O N 7 ID r-N W- N O Z m U N W Z¢ O Op A¢ roOC NO «' NN-a)7 NpO UO'O C7> �C'j oW a)O co �WrnN Y-- Oaaz E (4 N ry Q E 9 C w ro O N O .p 0, y` a) N O O Q y N >"=- Q C >� N O N 2 -- o m LL j a iY m e tN =Y iMUy =cam O a)O C'p'O NN NrE CNZU W�iNn aON¢¢¢w O p >� ro y O N _ O) v- 7 N C 1�-+ L >`> 00 O 7 Y W ca E pJNU-zo N d D C N ro __ C 7 L' >.E >- y 0 �i OL a) Q N O a A w O Q� O)tl1 'O N N �Zr> �CJUOZ O¢ m" i ,c..= O O C O �a c:C y U C N N f, mw .. L y N L O U O C y ¢ `m 0 Z¢F-7 0-0d ac Ny 0N,°OcOL+O� O ENco=Yo oNro-a[Cc70 ca°i Z Eoaola LLa Em C c o ri 0 c A O L N a) N >+++ ro Q N Q y O N Q. O U .. (a 7 y N C N 7 W > Q y¢ y m o L N Q.> N t0.) E D1 N y N U C M O 7 :O E O. Q O W Q U p`£ E a oo z o - z¢~ a p �i m coLD -0 m§Em9Y3mmEa U�C!5,a) i 00,C'J aE co ONm¢o Ww£a°mwaawgLL � E m Ea Olp- a ° N7 co .-o O-p- y'-v E a o w� a�=~¢=Om a� W a) (Yy/� N j O Q ++ L L C CO O) Q i)° T° 4y O,Z2~LL 3 we c ..p C +. C ._.. N >� C N N O N d .y-� N' > N N U •p 7 L y N N O 0 N¢ N O G7 IL a O w O LL¢° N c m N o"°EcN ca a CLC ad_ "0yL do N.� >v pEc>oLEa,-0 z��°ovOrGUQ� ro� 0(7 co �u EL "Q U asc+. ma>i a ,� •oNoco¢Eaci� >w �,Nzy¢z nEo •• C O a) O) y p d j N N F > ro +. j y '- ' O 'O y p O C O O Y m 0) Q ro ¢ - c U¢ F y Z, O d p :, C N p) C N m y o N d E m N w 0 .L.. N O N '3 y t. O O, N c -_ L. C O ro c a= m _z U LL_ z 3 U p N l0 O C O. 0 Y N-Y Oi ` Y yw _ C O L O N C.0 C O a) 0 a W co ow WOo ¢Z 0 0 .� �+C O>� 'O y _ ro ° Qm a)��.0 N O ti W C y.- ¢- d ¢ 2w >mW 7 T M ,+L-- O ro rO O. O y _� ° y ro U c6 N " L O N N N woo D C ro Z¢ U c O Z Z O Z F-- a O N O y 0 O O �O L ca U C ro L 3 ro N a) a1 F- I-- m¢ w ¢ O a mr0,_0 �c3ymENE a`o rn. o oag roc.rnoEoa) >g oWavm w=c°w �M 3L:ac °) O a) 2'rS—or-0? cc E 0 Y c EO yNy u¢7 >.ta��~wz�u o�d z 0 E> a) p rnm °y a n 7 N C a) E >,'p o N c co ya u.0 Mr Qro $ N o�d�z Nm=NNo y E E �N" N� o-a1roEo _oma)a °' "0 Cc°' a��(D 5 0 >.� zo M,—W �rnNO uSm O. .: c N y - 7 N d U L., N Y N ro> E 7) a E' C a) a NO O ¢ F-Z o- zF-ti d U N moo a� E m> a) NE croy L.c o v p,N-pOo>Q-D E Wp, U ¢_ ° co N E � y a) N O V O` c N y 0 co L w N E N > C N 4) , .O 3 N w o c S¢ O" ri) ° U° m t m N Cw 0 O C w N -0 c QCL E. O> C_ � r N - a) O ro 0)'0 .D N A N -O � yNa C W ZNw W Fw-a mot - Y d Y r� a) ' �+ L' O �i+O ;" {a C W 3,00 W a' Q. N C N N ro O O N L, >. C O .V C N 7 O) N N >: N C C N O>- L a) T O V O Z m O N Z (¢7 O, m¢ N o�ro E > o>rn aoNaco ro�rov�0 moo. 03>9�oU7 ri Yro �z�'vWazzQO? cmmC yy G1N0_CJ c °•�o°c_)'F�-o-o-o �v _ -3 °)m¢ oc°7+o)`.-6cNoia!�Q, �c zoAW�z�Z-? a �N� 0 0 c c o Co Y a) m m a ¢ pFrn i6W o C O. a) C N LL. r= '3 ° C W o P C - C a) kY a1 C N N C T 0) O) >. != Y N L1J ¢¢ c $'O K m C y ~ M a) N N N l0 >> 7 L'CN. C N° N L C N L N C V N'`- ca Y ro N N NUJ _C NL N i ¢a Wva'Oa¢00o� p aJ7�w O 7 C•+ ci "O O a7 y I-U 7 a7 y Cy Q E N�"O ttl�ZLL.«L.~ C �U) ��¢ai o �(50 ¢Zcia¢ Nu)dra U N r N N m U m E N N r y W L W C C C T .T N T N C 0 ERM m E E o E d Q L O y W V 01 O � o o e m E OYi m C°�O C�`m NE nC Q O O N O L O p N O N O U N O .O ofo N U ao- o U m m Or W NN m N N N m p ° O� ° .E �❑ `� Nr 0 0 0 m E� 0 .yam o. 1 E U� E darn 5a=CO E mvzJWiE9 ° f m m CO Ev d-°5mim o�oMfmc '3U� m o O N m a m N o W rnEo 0.-a a �To 4 FUo �E pm in vmy T �ma,mE w�o .ay E V D0 U N 0 V1 U — L �pp M C m a N O U p awE m yMW n¢'o@� i E F E 0, a e o°° U— m _ W W 0 a C a N j W® m C z W 3 3 W aE0c0 m'a �gEd a o N 0 A L `m 0 ° Z o 6 N w U=rn am o,Ou 'w°,cmy c cw E �Z 'W 'EQ rnm y N dLc�t' Wm M�NOOM 5N0e� U W �-a aLm E .0 N�pNZt -O O] CNN U= W W N OI N C U W= a a 0 0 m U_ ON ° D t z N C 2 V m� 0 5` N 'M0 N O 0 O m O E W LLO.1. W �00 c>.r �mU Em= �E—��ya UN�NaJ ma 02c El=,w M c W =, \ 0 C 0 s N N L N m C L N m fn U d 0 Of W t M N U m N UW C1 O O O m m U 2 do m UNiI OI - W N M fA L C au) V U) O. (O 'O M w M> N Housing permit report card The Southern CaliftynIa Nows Group has of, it itIt I v� it it tit V ,roll , utIIity U1 the -.t Ott ti of how wull it's (neoting State -mandated goal's to ISSUe hOUSlny, [)Ottnit�, vl(I OY. t t,lntIf, tit It unit, 1(IVt+lI.; /OOITi In nt t Ili kiln the magnifying glass to find a Jurisdiction, tht't, hove I ovoi tit top of It tnt toothy Santa Ana is supposed to permit 204 homes between 2013 and 2021. Here's how many permits it has reported issuing through 2018 compared to the number it would need to be on track and its final goal. Very low income housing I Category grade: A Has permitted 241 units. Needs 28 to be on track, 45 for final goal. Low income housing I Category grade: A Has permitted 440 units. Needs 20 to be on track, 32 for final goal. Moderate income housing I Category grade: A Has permitted 41 units. Needs 23 to be on track, 37 for final goal. Above moderate income housing I Category grade: A Has permitted 1,565 units. Needs 56 to be on track, 90 for final goal. Bonus points: 2.5 (for doing well at lower/moderate income levels) overall grade: A+ �."WPPPP - Irvine a) _r_ tLo :E a, � M ID CY) w CYI r, a) C7) cn r4 (�i "ir;i Mm r� m m ^ M rn C�4 r! rn m r� In 4 rn .4 N N N a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . cu t9 a) a) 0 75 Qj >, CL 0 0 (v >1 E 0 CL -0 (v _0 -ow E O"j aj 0 0 u 0 Z3 a) N ;g w E tw w 0 W Sz 0)C 0 L Y 0 Q) Sz -0 LJ M M (v > a, 0 O bbO m u V -0 W w E ba E E .— �= o 0 0 Ln -0 _0 Q = L C) O Ln 'CZI as qj Qj QD V, 0 Ll eli Q vi Cl X.) 0 LU > I— qj .Z Ln Qj r� ,Z3 M In m > 0 M� kp a) Qj Lq (4 1-- bj Do�' o- m Qj qI �c a au /0 O E T Ocu q� O p ° a p J C u1 � O GO iLV O A C dcn O u o '� Y 6o [y v 040 7 ` v O E Y � ON cr m •N � Ip f6 • % a V i�•l E O x m j2 >pd° E O L N +' (6 ' O v C N N ..+ a N 7 u C W O > N N .. N � C '6 C O E � >, E: V' Q < D. E O u W ,_, Y ai �° .0 C N C N N N (U O L bo L O Q C O � O a)O N t7 v, C Y N p E rn L •- O N O 0)N i N C _ -0 N O ai E T _0Z fC aO (UYO .C LO: N F YO (N6 Yv aO Y0Vt Q w aL-.. 0 3 L s T@ = E m a(D ClsCU Q 6) yam- cu Y c f6 Q V � O � C L 2� C � � � (f1 i > U 'C T v O T M 07 (6 O N > 'N +�+ C E m C LL N }' N v w >` E i Q E E (U C 7 CL 7 O 3 C� C (U i f p E> N@ v j c O O [tl w y U f O f U p> v C in as oD C N > f0 = Q= Q Z3 C a� c C p i u T U1 C Y -p N E O N > C `� o c L a a F -p a� O O E- Y c r- Z- y N 0 C v o a ,� w a N U a N U N C Op T i p a a o f6 v co i 7 (U 3 f6 C N 4 0 N C T CL tm E O v a s L �I O N N� 0 0 i' (U Y O' u .Q m y -�F, c N vi L G� N C E >� v ra �✓ O O i O C Y .._ v �� O L E O N m L 0) a) E c f O E O O Co O C Oca O Z "- Q� v� T w v s T O N E Z3 0 N C rCo UJ y N a) co i ++ 0 i-+ i O N f 0- ._ .s IN p/ i Q_ Lo N l7 .[� M Z id .� i O N f= co N O N O- O L u >' d > �I C> N .E p U E � '.�—O 7 f2 f ��j a, ro O Z a� Fti Y a LO OL C OU Q1 0 aE N OU T L Z C u > 11 f1 (B .� a k k � k 2 ON bJD cn .Q � �WD � S � o � � � .tv 4-1 O bjD � U z / � % \ \ 'e ) k E Fa= a 0 \ E _ ) � £ aj ra 2 ƒ _0— co \ / & ki \f)4» ,yem: !:§\\ \E :l:z2 #oƒ°E co ,u $!e\\ /� CM \n ;[) { \\{/)ƒ \OL �\\\\ \})\({ {®(\)) §00 0ca } /-0 a) $ « k 0 § \ \ \ \ \ S LL LLI LL >' u h .� a) v �O C m a m E O o °' N E c = v1 Yo E o w -0 O W 7 C N ry N m O T> O -0N vi L '= u a/ = a) C �n c a) a) ll: E Y C) b0 Y >' L a)tto E O O 'O i L 0 = t .O 'in- i6 bO = = m L O 3> = a)t Y; m I a CL c E J E v6 CU aai aci m o' O a) t ++ a°) L v� _ �+ Y V Vl: .J a) L = VI C L _C �"' E O L 0 m =O �' y t=6 Y m bO a) a) bO u O N a) a) L L aL+ T o O N aj C J 3:O O Ln C i 0 a) m b0 C u C O bO w E m N YV E - O E a aJ m to 7 L 7 a/ J m O e a/ Y E O C _+' m G L E E N L m u N L O vYOi a Y i YO v 0 E L ,� a u y m m n m O u Q o c M m n E T o — r Y 3 3 .a/ m a o .E a) L v T v Y a) 0 Q N a) Q u 7 Y b0 a a) a) A 4 V 00 Om E E L O cr cm: Mn b0 ` a E >, Cr H E E " O u O u O O u C : O a a) Y = v N -0 Q CL aL+ N =mC NE O u E p C a J OO O a1 n O 7a O ro L O O O X_ N = LOO _ O QOj ub0Y Yt>JmJ O O im m O O L a Q O aYmI6 � u bp N Y O Y O m LbO m y C a) O L m J Y O Q Q. "O Ou C N f6 (Y6 > 4! 4 �! W L O t6 R Lb L 3 C a) m b-0 c= a d L Q O y Y al C O i .i N L Y u 0 a) C L a) a m J O O_ Q m C— LZ a) bq C C C a/ L bO b0 y. '~ CL 7 a1 Y = .0 V a) a/ a m N Y O Z C H 0 a H c ~ i s H N m � L... m m fl- lmJ N N N1 bO c 0 L v C bA C iE E L w a c a c L w -0 w 3 a) w O O u a C m N u ro 0 0 n M G O v u 0 R a v OJ to S m c w w a w C 0 O C O a l c"- E m,, api 0 m s y 0 a O ybmj 3 EOu !^ aVvw1 YCL aO!: Y'E° ywL • EC L'^ " c yuyoE r oa.E w vip O ai •c E bo v CN YYyE o u m CO > Y V1 L O V t to C 3 m p- L L L Y m O w v m , Ln n: `° `w '' n bo C r a v bo a bCo bo L X j U L 7 C w L p w L U > d w C O Olt 4- c bo L W •Y+ C bO O O �n in: O E 0 E C9 _ Y V a w Y m E 9 o W. Y c 0 L c > vO c_ 0 aN' aL.+ u > N L N ba -n Y p= L w ¢ L - w '6 Y a v� O >. " � L L Y m L m L bcn s N E o':: E E 3 p o v.- o" 0 w o w v m 0 o c w E 0 w p u m w e ii L 0 d C u E C O 0' o w aC/ p� 0 H V1 C O i N L m m-0 m r_ C C Q 7 bC: C INii bO m u C w w H 3 -6 w w '� w N "O .�n ` 0 7 u m C vi u Q C L L _Y w O O O O w w t O m '� O 0 00 >' w N C > 'bCA v E L u L _c g Y Si 2 n n 'd o 'a m bQ ao $ c w L c N o Y E = C[ w CO O w m N O ' w O +�+ O >j L; >i a w �"' C C w ++ C w ¢ m -O Y Z E Y Y L L y W w C y bU Yj �! ..0 Vw1 lmJ O >1 m-0 bo a '�' 2 O m lUn o La 'u ,mL, v l7 L M w v aa) c �+ c w c t O a E O p O C L Z m u aL-+ H N 0 w O 4! O Yj L O m N m Y j '> N +w+ LO v m y N N- C L v E v-0 0 m w I a >, 0 0 c_ C m ° m 3 to —^ bU L 3 0¢ w e o c u 0 au) v c LL w-0 E Y �', o E c Y u m awo y `° 1 L m 3 w c cu m C 'm o m co u E y w 0 O m m .^ v '�- o Ul L i _ L it w m p U u a O c O L L O O bA M m w Y Y aj pEj C a R C a O w. =� rua y 7 O O 0 w Z a3 0 0 E 0 m u °� E E ° ° °_° $ E u m Ul cu E E 0 i= w L i w w -O 7 0- - C O u ba L L a O C ut 7 L am+ Q Q C a 10 Y Y w LO C w C �' O d LO Y C V Y c .( C m b0 L w -� u a N 0 E a' 0> 0 `� E 0 n u wn ° a o ¢ m Q • IL- aL+ Q l/ O m F- w E m 0 rG O 'C O N Y-- N 2 >+ 0 2 ¢ u w L D vi U L - L Q Y U c O L = -0 y K N a +-' V a/ C 0 O y, a i to u 7 tp -O ca 5 7 ..+ a O U O aJ E a �' H E a/ W O C 4 O N i w N O E i O N p C O i T i u -0 C L ai a a m L E a1 Y L a) N a N C 16 aCL i O L i 0 E bCA L p = L O_ 0_ y Y al = T m M N to Z L N t0 m 0_ v u C 3 al Y bU C Y O E Y O 0 C bo ar a a a Y C Y (6 bD a 0 Y -C O 0_ w o C '� 0 O v= a,M W E o o N 0 a v O Y N y O m 4- W a) O Y L al O_ a o O ut bA O O L Y Y C C 0 .0 .� .� O N s c E v O Q O Y o y o u -oo aj V o N u O O W W- D T, m N �n m c `S. L L O a/ Y 4 O L O O Y C y� y :r N w? C y 3 O_ O/ w O L m E lu 0 C O L L O 0_ N C 'E j _0 ai '-?� =O L N a) C Y to i � a! v1 � T w C t6 c �+ E in Y v > w C E to —- v c W o !a C O ai y r 0 Y p-0 a Y u bl a/ L '~ m 0_ L Q 7 I— U — 0 0_ U aJ a N b N L/ v) Q Q r- H /� l �Un}y = ' ('� > (3) N f - :3 .+� C Q Q! C fa C O -�- j _ Q .� ZT i 4 cf) ■� rE O L W 4-J C77 C In tf7 ?, C � CL C Cell .1 op (L3 '- a)N ® - to Q V) ,_ C cll O C E Q>w- 0� Q � `'- . �' U a m +- O to tC) r- 4- ++- C Lf7 U) . V m o o Q. E s N H, m .CD 4a Vi 5Z � o [� Q 0 r N N H N N b f ^, o Q r CD cu a E E d CZ- C: `4-�° d d a o zCD 0 0 0 Ln N lr1 M n CO co O t� Cif c� O vi o N tL GD CM Ln N (NJ N r Z s N b U v a TL r` n` LL C c a c a E a LL c c u c 2 N N r y O m j C C N bco C c m L C O E Q E u 7 Q Y c o ao C +-• z Y N p r Y 7 fo .�;i .� — = 7 N O u 7 7 bO C M bo O L Bi C a O C aJ K C L L c a1 rat O y aJ M: O v e-' L L O' Lam' ate+ t c cu O C�O o Q �': -O L NI i- wi N V1 1— — Y Q C O a.., in: L GJ Y tt is 7 LQ O- O a N U a a! OU a r �' O' -aY C a O 7 O Y L 3 N 7 c S; u 7 Y �;. p aJ C; p 'y.; c •_ v c E Y `° ": m u •3 -o Q L aJ E •y E ?5' 3 a v bA o v1 bO a C -O i H a b.6 !-GJ aJ 'u — a L a N Y c C C; bCo _T v! C Ci N Q O: a c a Y C a b0 O C J' YO O- 7 tL6 'i i V L v: w 7 ° -p c " O �: 7 — E ^; 03 �' o a Cl)m¢! c v - N_ Q N ti p m O �T,''. a Y -O! c C T N - L vJ bo y 'ui L N C O L '� E� L O I a 2 c _ N a) N .vz 1] a1 .c O: w �' bO p; i. 'L = 0 LL N N N O' a] d N CO O Tii C to N >i ? N C Q > E 7 aJ E Q -a + �; L p v Q o M O: = — O a > o E n o aJ c i $ Q �i 7 v m E 6 Lo E Y U O YJi L t a/ u: 6 N Hp C ? C Y� N �, a3 Q C C N Q C C �; v Vf to Q m C L E '�n aJ m c 0 .'i O O m v E p .N �6 Y: ¢' aJ V- bO L m O' 7 H m = Q 4- Q a_+ N Y O E U 7 L 7[ >4 3 C Y a 7 C O a a1 ay L �, 7 7 > v m Y O O aJ o f m C p c E aJ _0 L N = w t6 w c O of a) w a) i0 L > tllf m: 7 L O 4 N L aJ C CU N m l7 N a) u a"C+ N aJ c O L O uO tY6 L a1 N Q j 7 c O = a Y E O O N E t6 Z C ut a) O a a >+ O O' 'O L 9 aJ ++ j �n m uli al Y t m O Y a) `� a/ C Y +-" N Y C Y C L L >, > in aJ m= z Q Q vJ m c bO L (a — .ro o `6 3 Y o > 'x E L m€ 7 Q c 3 L c L aa, o E o m m w Oyj+ L (- -p �. (a }O+�i aJ Y c •O 1/1 Vl V �: Y tD ?� O y w U VI CO W f6 L: L al O o4F Z Y Vl.: V •'C N aJ i� t6 y p u— — C: c C = Q bO u 7 aJ Qs Z L i. c z o a:CD v c a m v m E E c m o `v^ a y v L aJ _� 2 �n aJ c aS L a) N 7 m C N =; vi l7 c H E 7 Q p bO Y N Y Y Y 0 A bO0 r N V1 T N > aL.+ CL +L' L O > p w L Z aai C O C N CL w a O `.� O L 2 L C +�.: O N E N W fca l.7 b0 vi > C `Y° Yn ,� O —: 16 O fl. -O v� L O N bO c C! bO L a3 C; E L O > X I uY1 n�l U -C t'i mj 'a+ a s >i O V1 L �' N O p tub Q O ut O a L OJ a! L it aJ aJ bo Q 7 N c Y: aJ N bO L4 Y N u y Y: C y,� a/ �s L C a O U a L Y Z Y �' E re y C a1 L 7 O aJ aJ IO 7 Y z c 1C Y s c c' v E L= v E ao ,� -0 E> s E Y aJ v N 7 �i E Q uu tail; m i �[ Ou O s Q 7 OL L v: 0 C O a�J O 7 O T_ N >. C Q C L L L l7: C LL U Q ..O m N N W 0 O COC' O wl L= O O C E Q v 33 O C YN C) E O O Nv C14 �+-. p O C> '6Q3 CU a �.' L c 'j E fa '6 '6 C_ m v 3 _ L Y bo of C bo v u bU C Y O T > O �+ 7 � a iY/1 N L v c> p c E a bn v > � > c n v c E u v C: c E m n m v o C bo O 0 L f6 N v O Z Z `° m— N n Q E _0 p ] o yi',, x �+ m � E Q s N Y Y � o C i W CDm O E u O E H N '14 OZ O v- U L > O 16 -OO O v v m bo v u Ci O v v O O O- u N O v O o v i n Z 'O L =' v �= 0 to +' N N 3 7 Q O T v E v a ;_ L Y' P c� E_ u m bY° o 2' >o '6 v L N Y N C 9 C O Y Y _n _v C u C Y bo CL v u L N 7 :3 ' CDV m C O v v Y L N Y �' C v� Ovv u 9 O W OC ?vm v 6 3in CO vi vi V E Q > TE D 0 'O E p Q; uU/ N Q N Y L V Y '= N v bC.O 14 L a R 7 w y Y_ E u YO .0 m E O L E � +v+ v t6 ''' bA '- 4 to O 9 E u y ra v C d '� N E E 0 L v L Y v a. E 'O v C !a L Y Y in v N O �/1 bA i:+ C C n N u N u Q v E T bo m L E i n E N E i_ >i 7 u O L O u3 p f6 C v v L O u vO- O �' L u L v E v i d v L N N Y T 7 �_ a� m L O 1+ v> v a v C L C ;r a Y a C bo > O O 7j m .� w u u o u m C v t L w > ,Yn v > o O ~ O j3 C E Y o !'' C v u L O -6 v m F- v v i v T W u t6 ap C u m O i L Y m Ln m _ i �n _ N N m m L m a) b-0 CIOO- c C O O N N a) Y Y O ' 3 H Y L bD Q L S C N E aJ O� E L c N u m Oc O O p N a) C N Q O E L U "ON N O Q O O- `p L C te Q m '0 > C O L O p O 'O i-' O E O O O YNbbA� Q m Mu Z a/ E a) mma0 _ a) O >O yr Q E U O Dc m p w O aJ N 'Dmm Y i O m W L T m V Nm O m C a/ 'O N Nm O i L Oo u O N bCA � T m a) > W- yCL Y y m u p :': G N V 7 In V C O C Q m a) O O'm N t6 u w— u E i o N C O al 4 m O E m 3 N L N Q �Li1 .� vpi o_ o Y o u a m E v E m(a E aJ O- �^ O N N O m �Yi C d m E al >: u E m m .O N LbA O L m i voi C L O 3 O L Q L w a! U 7 p O m Q O- C 7 0 N Y O a) L m N T y u -=03a1 _t..' L .0 w� y N N m z E> ap m 6 Yo Y o v 0 Y u a o a a o v o a c v s C U Q L ba -O i c ni a) E C N ' a0 O o N T N v 'M n bO c � Q s C -0 C oo N `m 0 Y Y� N E N CD n 00 s r aci i i m O L aL+ T Y p 7j j L LO N C F Y p C C C c Y a) L O u _O: N N O E N Y pp C N W m m m O N— L C m "C C C a! p Q y a0+ N L C C L u �.,; N w Y p al C C- 'm m 4 C aJ X Ue aJ 4 •O N '6 i Y O O aJ ` O a al w 'w L 7 ii N m N O O_ al yOj O r_ ++ Q O N u v s m '� E a 3 ;' o> Q 3 ci > on S E p a/ 3 C O +' C y! c i O u u C y 7 O i C aJ +.' - m L a) i > L u E C p N Cl.O- 0 m 3 G C; m L O Y C N i m tj w> m �[ i U' L N al Vi L y > m d> N T �, O a/ C +' G/ C bA 'O m 'C i m O' C y o O a/ L N L O E nil C C m i O: ' C 'O �' a/ i i O N E y N N W t _m N m m— E m ..0 O i�+ 'y0—., m ai j u m u o: u a m E a, o -p a x= 'E bo ai .Y v Y y u '� E y O O O C p N � asj m u' L C '�—n v n �- W L M N -p N O m Q Y Ln .6. H N c v - .'�° '�'�. m �' E m O m u bbJO c m L u O C i Y C a w N N O � U c N c p '� T u N C t vi a) a`+ u d O L •bm C C i c a) O rco N L Y Y Y i) e m C c c N -° c m v a c m" 0- E c tLi Ln N 7 •u M p a) a a C L aL+ C a) b0 to a O N C Y �'` O C �.., C Q/ W VI Ln a) a L a T Y N ba N U C E J O N u C '� a:+ O a C Q ut •u p Y 4= a a) C a) E p L a) u v- O O C N 9 N O m bO 3 a) N O Y O O t6 m '6 a bc0 ba C to as d a1 a L C m U 7 O b0 al —_ . b9 E ut O U a) C O L_ L NC N a O N O L O a C v1 U > of C 3 y N N 10i1 +L' N T +R al pH aL+ u�ni L U ip !� L CL 0 a s w 0 a i) i N 3 +.+ U a) vt y o a 7 V a) m E al C a) t'j t6 7 O- Y a+ C N L i ^ i J () 0 C a) of .O C c O Y 7 N ip_ Vf a3 fa m Y C yp i E O c a E a) i E M u T a N O E a0+ M O C C � N �' U fa C 0 Q y O N Oi ut Q ut O Y'D Q C 4- M 7 m }' u L Q N a 2' 0 W-� Y 0 in p C a) Y Y N y Y O aai ^ p c c E o `o z c °o v Y Y o ac c E �O bU �- o_0` i O N Q u = O C T N 0 9 v) Q bA i Y! aL+ E •C C C L Q C O a Q Q' N ``� ;n ra C l7 Y O O 0 O C N .�O' o 3 0 o 7 ° L0 c o � O a) 0� N z m p a) aci a v c m aEi a�'i to .O E L i/ e c N va) to -0 L i f6 0)Y uE -0 uC COY E L m cu -C a �n m C u c L 3 O �. Y v ut 0 V�f L 7 L Y aL+ t6 L O u C m ^ c a E N c = o l7 0 a )a E E = '= a 0 v O _ pi X as Z a •� 0 bu 7 0 c v L .;; a Y a +� , m¢ ba w N VO a U al E c U u .p +-' d Y — u c c s.. t' 0 a a) c O +-+ 7 Q 2 -c N C m a) m O L - X C in N O O O O 0 in ba -= T �n N C N T Q L 2' O LL WO N t Y -O m `� u w C i0 vi a) _� a C N +-' O N a) aL-1 a .� � C ut a) p a) v- O m e a) 0 a) c`o vpi `—° c a) " v 0 '° m n 0 a L a) U NVI Q O a>i E N Y V ,'� Lb.O O V U `�>> i la bD ypj N 16 m i) Y ut C O O (6 C J Q C V1 p In C w T N a C a) a) 7 a) a) Y a+ S.�' u ba J al T c L -p N a) L V al N L C Vt C O m E O .0 z c c C a t i OU v) ba Y a O a) O c •V 7 a O i- L O — �' �+` L Q L ro Y a E L tyo CFli N N �n Y m =p Q �' 0) zO N Y b0 �n V ro ba a: 1n W alCL N O L E a) r N O Z L. N J N N L Qj > 7 O O O C •VI 2 Z .�.. Q Y W Y In C O c ~ J L In :- 7 d' a a In a 0 e s O a`„ IA C Q L O y y O O am,, a C L 0 c C U N SO d a Fn 0 m to C O O 0 m i I- O_ � c���� a Ql ate+ R cn m Oo O� �4 a"'' tm.1 031 H L y m ffi v y vo w �o ¢ 3 o w (U c w w T m P va��3 l7�mYooC u�i is o m vmi o c c '^ w Y c o QD .a ty9 by O_ -C N m C u 0 �I CO v N Fn N O m m g17 L9 �j C a1 X H N Y m'n U C� FFF+++111 u Z L ++ C Y a) tcoo � C Fn U Q t/� Y c `o n L� m y �}ly � u L 3 a/ C O ca �i an a Y a o aj a v s o � "Z$ ++ a `� L m x Cs a! y R H U m�CL a �' O cu ,p C m e �n O_ ate+ 7 0 •� sn �"' ° Q '^ m W 3 a O Zi A >' .n c .,FT i O C a 2 O >, wv 1 L z � N '^ � _ > tss VP FPB L C O lm/ aJ m 'C bip7 v1 O> 1 N i C Qi a4P� y m E La aia O Fn O da O .® O i '.' L> L yL., u T a) C ++ a t@ m ii 0 °— ,n L O ba o vs Ln to ® v n c c c N .N ai o a ,� piIA L" a cL� N C vmi Fo 0 o c m �' a o O p N 0 W y 'u m i CS m F-� 0 m c� v Y �E .,�� v Y �"'� ni1i a ao m L N ;n Y x �^ y -0 �aj " L ra 0 `= a N al y >.• Ou ,n �- a 9 L 7 cs Y r as o m t°'o u c Ln 0o �j m a3i c° 3 c pry 35 407, ..i •ri a _o � 6 cFa c Fa ��, au a *' c c -0 °in a M 7,� rl m Y V VI 'N W ° - u m M W -0 Y, m U VB W W W ^I N 12 E 'i a, L i 7 r>'t Q 1n 3 L c L L 4F u gy WvjW C C i- w u-0 a+ w Oa CL m y uY Q o 0 o C5 IV ��l L E v o n m> N M N> �o y FA MPn wSri T tc0-0 O_ma a x 3 N A/ L i vOi'l.7 m L m GO �. ^.i 9i. W E m u -o N N � ;n v �.'y a m lzl F''' ai I� F AQ+ F H� `> v" o> v L y m Fn u' a M -0N> W o O u m Ou M .-� 2 C Z C ou 49� ar- Mr C a V Ln aJ av N ai L O aJ ro 4- Ln a) O i >1 U o a; Q Ln L v a) 0 O O !O (O aJ i N aj av a, ro �a) C C U ], o c v U � O F.--,Orc C N E O .. Z 'No N 3 N N Z N T G � �N N ro Q V N O J L fo O rn C roro m 0 aT a? o Cao E a r N IA t y v= N 3 a) L a) m a_ C o O Y o u bo ^ 0 °° c m .3 i C o Y c c m c a3 CU mJ tLo N v o cO vo ° 3 -0m T C al ?i C ° c m 0. C; Y O 2' Y J u �^ N v1 0 7 L C a) C L v, C O a) L O O 'vl U . CU Cl u >, S OE E O . O 'COj bOJ m C> QC Um cO u;n O U C a YO: c° O T J a O O m E �O 0C m° a c m � m O c _'0 0 -C o L b0 T Y = m •Y0 Oc O v� ,Y�b0a y om cr a/ m LLU '0 c O ¢ . .o(U ca O cN-0 O m a a) c y O C' N Q ° E "Y > V, m E ° E c a ) c ( o E m ° a c C bU c O O m ='v v, 0 Ol Y aJ u m >i of JO :� of U` c c J 'X -O JO >'- Y C a M� O b0 N m m E 0 'O m N bma C v1 L 2i of m L -p y,• L c 0! i 0 L tLa a/ -0 O a/ 0 C a) M bcA L N y. m ba Y O +� c� L C E E N v- a) Y i 6 m> m J .D m > ° c m +�+ 0 J 'O Q C a) > V1 Q aJ -p 0 m +m+ E O bq by C m m a a) w° -0m E ai 6 m L c c Y L m -o =0 m J +L+ L� J L 0 c L J a) m ° N '6 J 0 L O O U m O Y O N Lv01 N m O W Ln E C C E YV_I YO 0 > � C N C bc0 CU 0 m W 0 m O_ Cl 0 Y .0 c a) E 'c L >' m v1 L E Eb m 7 C Y NO E Q bO 0 0 0= a0+ Y j u O 2� i i) V) ° as a, Y Q m v vJi aL.+ v c L a a; `m 3 r E y E a 'O 7 T T bo C c "O i O Y aT L_ V,, u N L a) v.0° N N J E V m 0 m a) J Y V i > a) 2i Y 4- c y Y > Q m V) s '00 H m c H= v ° 0 L ° >' 'w > J J o ° U > ,Ji, E F- L .�-i -0 LL m CO V Z Vl iR K. N N '- r Z a N w N N r N ? y O aR j '6 E N C N CD1 �N j+ E Y y o Y v O L O N N y vO- O O O Y RS (YJ "O C N C o v7 M ate+ O C i C N : V1 L Ao C Ip 1n t "O E O +.+ 7 C O L ay C Y o o N It c E CD o �s o' v a la °� E 'c° nO a) m O) L O C a5 N a�n 'O "N m .D c w O C O C 2 O N m - E cc E a O a a) ar c o M -c w o m c ai m u s N c µ" L i0 Q o Q> y o ba u 00 O C N O �-- O O _ 41 O o C7 �n -O al C N C 3 n+L c u C7 mCD o ar m 'a 'o o f c o cu o a> �4.= ° m �� c c a a"i L E C� o+ a= c g t a X aa, o U N � E 7 c m O aL+ w O "O .0 O -O C a'' r O o m .� YO 3> t v o E C O Y f`•'i N @ W O C N Q C CL N C7 O O (O �y U C N C Cl- O N `.1 o ce i 16 'O to O N d J a� E i N O N N I C ?�. C O C\j C 'O L E L T O i N E w Z' a0 O C rtl a5 o Q p C SC m m a� L a> i v O O O O O O N w o O v o n o fq N W CD �-0 o 0 0 o O v N> -' c •� N V) Q O N (O V N i C a) -O fp L N Y'~i- a' L y0,, " '— s eo6 iwaad 6ulsno 1. 0 QJ M o w : ° F-a_0cnoo I H N� SL �s o 0 N b N tv / \ . _ /) _ 0 >1\\ f -\\ t { - 0 ƒ fu [ u § ) ; ({GJ }§ \ C $) f )�w -§ / j - �§ -DO\\ \« 1 -a $) § � { § j \ ■ / / _ aj } \/\ \0 \ _ E >1 0 u —0 a / { )0 \ \\� �\ w :, 0 §))/bO \ }{/\ U 2))} a E E E w �E w q = CL :_ 0 F-- - \\\\ /u § (�)0 1 \�\- I 22u § _ ) - r0m/ w C L � L � � L O N N Z N N L E aC > ai G O L Y fO S L T L L Y � Y U/ y� UJ Y Y Y lO ba C Y y [+ '0 V1 �"' O N -0 L G1 'O C C ,� aTJ CL N m V m >' L > - +p al Y w ''' O m N 7 m O Y aL.+ 7 aJ _0 m Q '>O -O 7 N aJ Q u 7 N m T O C0 Ou 0- E N al C "O Y N al C N L O 'O C-0 m �n 0 N O C C N bmp 0 "6 O L > W Q 0 Ou m v a) O O d 3 u :O Ou O o 7 0 m O Y O Q ''' v. ip O L �+ w 0 O N C O C C O_ Y V _ + L O T O Ln ado/ N O 7 7 N OL u 0 sue.. N N N ll C N L C L u m ai c L t7 % u y c ar ar L N a) C +L+ L 0 N U C 0 M L L �n L > LD 7 i O m C Y L 7 m L L 7 '� H 7 N O Lp_ N Ln O V w o M c m (D E a, O C .j_O' @ 4O O bA 7 m C 7 S 0 b0 0 _O C L c 0 mmi ° a^ E c E v E t o w v L22 c >^ 0 O YO u a) m -� p 7 Ln al "_' Ou O X 7 �L : Y a) G 0 C O u C i O u C L u L L O N a1 Y O O m V1 N V' �, O_ m 7 0_ O L tC6 C C N L1 Y L E a0+ m u_ O E '� M" O �u'' > C j E Q O m O b0 C O O a) m Y a� m am+ L K L Y O -O 4- a) ♦+ m E u 0 v c L E = u u O c u n u x W c c o Y o Ln o O C L Y N V1 w 7 a) � O m N O E L v1 C u (V O E 0 T Y ED-t > p L O C -0 O o C Y ;n V— m0 > E O Y 'O Y a/ u 7 v� m L L z m C C N b-0 bD m C m aj L m m o w m c Q Y E n ao E u ° c c E v L 'Y 3 �°L'76 �' o v o o vYm ° "-0 c" -0 � c Q o ui E c o 0 o° o aQ c s aoo 3 � ° L W-0 r 0 E a- 3 E v> Y L Q L in Y — `° E `� L E bo -0 u o m L 7 a7o c O L o ,., 00 E L Y o m v 0n v N 7 C a) u a1 C U L 7 aL O bW-0 C 7 Y 'm v vmi m .� ai L :o T -0 c? m 3 0 0 m x +-' o .� to mr, n v n _m E m aoi m m w E w v L v to t-0 >, E -EL0 v o bco > o > Y u aJ E L u m Y 7 VI ��/f C u C +' O- a! ut L L Y x m C CL m O O V E C ym, L N a L H m L b0 y Y ba b0 -0 u N L_ Yn C O R i h 0 J m C O N YO N �O O 0 bYA b0 O E L N 0 C Y N Y C �_ al d ;C i E i N a+ -0 L) O Mn N aJ C j'.. 0 �n 0�1 O L O O E y m N O L L L m 0 N m L L H C m E O L m m Q bA : F- v) Y F- L 'a+ v� u T v1 v- �n Y F v� O_ l7 Y in w Q L N a N '0bZ 6 o J 01 O d c -O y a`i l ej m c-0 E LP a tio L m L o c a 3 3 c c° t o '3 v m O C O ar „O i d d E m om j u w N .NO xbin LO O O= c 0 m O al C O m C o O O O O O_O a i O_ w C m -0 i u yy O bo a w oo Oc m cNL o LA v :Oo .c u c u 3 O -O CCD O YbO y YO c C m � X m wO > cu w m y (U E o o aabCii cu p u T cu o c X L N a a) aJ J J cu J E OL bn O E >1 O z E O_ p. n }, N u aci aT' N> E Ou m E 5 bo° m mo En bon o C; ai -a a) v o E" o ° E Y v t N ) Yo 3 w c E m _ m o$ a $ c= o o: v m c v 3 N f-: L O T Q N O 3 E J U Y ¢ a) 4- 'Q VI IA E w 3 a m n E N L J v o a a Y 3� m a1 iCi L a+ E a Y W a.+ O :� E L a, O) O O T _ O y al __ C y m C m C a+ l7 O a+ a 3 O O al it N '� Y Y C C O V C O O +� C J V a+ al aJ.+ T L C C a+ a J Y -a o= c bQ ai L N u ?, .� n v� L E ° O O m m >, D y Y C �0 Y Y� Y E N i+ O m N� bn a V a) n a ba N m m +� c m E6 N s al `-' c o bn �' 3 C o v N a N c �i E ao v a m u w" v o E a+ m a m u r D v v? a ^ c u c N v o L J 3 N o c L a a c o u a bA O m" o bcn m c 0 L E O> 3 i w a Y m -`° o ar aci a`i m bn t` o_ bcn N J .� L, .D a L u L bn t c 'Y^ fn C N m T Y O > ¢ m Emil N `r C C i a/ m Y i6 L w O_ lSi a/ C L X_ NO Y i m m ,�-.' aJ �[ N a) > m O a1 Y y o o E E a n c o YLn O C a) m �i c O w C N it u u d 41 Y a 'C O O N J 00 ya L O -O bn m fm., N O m C v c o c° •N 3 E c v-_ ° E ca n m a L, t m y c a°pia N a° +' m c �' c: m° y 0 6 J: w E c n O J E N aJ J a m R >' +O'' C 7 bn > _� U1 N O i L i Y O N N a) u L m O L-C V N Y O m L1 c m O O o R L O O m " a L @ w F- a+ Q V7 ++ L 3 O_ — O w Ln Y T LL' ++ >. LL V w YO 4 N if b1 Q 0 Q m ate+ 7 C N C O N i N L C m U N N O m Q Y m L ej X v o m E ° ' 0 p ai 0 b0 v p p cr p m- N v L i s ah L E m yi, 0 m 00 m v"i O v •p O C 'O C - y N Y L L Y o f E m y C O m C v L o v U bb E L N C C .O LbA p N O 'O C O m U C O L} s- L m Y > > O 4 y L L GJ Y > C Q O' C T C 9 i 0 N 0,T m .Y Q y-Z a V p l-Y" O y m w - 4r O i O i>> •O O_ C m a) w O w m m CDIn to W l.7 .� .N i F+" _ r2 O C O .1c Z Q %CD •am+'O C V1 O Ln C CL _0 i1 L O N O Y 'O N N m N N -O N a,O_ O O Yrn O > L '6 m O b0 C v L Lbp O -O C C �,,, O O_ m L N Q _CL N vmi w N O O_ N = ti O N N i X L C .O u H Q OJ N L= O- j O ^ C v 0 E O a0 YO v_ 7 V1 O N @ a O+ C p aii �L u O v E O m Gl V O- m :E"6 O L U Y O L p c = C O 2i C Y�ii.. C� m L v'''i ✓� N L N O = O d 2i u E O N Y blC m V O_ CJ U Y bl J m bb C= C Vf C C O y OJ C N' N C O N OJ U/ Ln Y O 30 L O O Y C O L N El O N e 4 l0 O C t6 C O v O u m 'E 0 m u c ai t Y_ 0 Ln O c 0 m O i IL bA L c Q E 0 C V ai a a, Q O C 0 C cQ G bO bO C 0 O L ai E 0 yam, C 4- O °- = 0 N N C N = O 0 O $ N O= bCo in c .� O N Y m W O Y 'Ol m a m a a a) tko Q Z 4 O a) Y Yjj al 0 0 N N 0' Y a Q N > o n U VI N_ v- t L dl L i a !6 — E by �- v a/ -C O -C Y c E YN c > bO Y E 96 c y c w O N L = O 2 C IA o O bO aJ N E L c v C L 0 i m O O a A H to a/ ° �n L Ci 3: N N a tO 0 a~ e4T%. U/ O E N N N C � aJ N t6 L N � O :F+ u 0 a) i O CL O O N o- E C O X 'G n u ° u L a, n�i ++ >1 m .� ° N rp - n u a CC 41 c L C y Y a U YQ N� E w y O fl O Y a a ai — —3 a ? v bn > L 0 > a -0.0 c O ° �I Y X a Y v S 3 H c L `° c m .-� E O 3 Q_ o J rx C a C w u O C bA �n In w >T O_ O H w OUJ C "O m w L C aL+ w m w =' 42 ' Q 7 ° b-0 O m v1 u O A c m i C Q r-i *' = Vi > E w O� L N w Yl W m O V1 L O w Q bD ,Gln U L L YO N i' 7 E -° m `-' i V1 UJ u° c o 4 v `0 3 To we L 3 cu wyw,=L .rOL >o-It v -O cu w; N C 4-n E bO O a ••O m ra $ca 3aN mL 0vbo °w w E Ln w.- Vvw3 1 C mo m ; Y N O _ EC CU � m �O y CL >o E O 1 E 2 rz E oo o c m w Wo o m w O_ Q w a> w 7 > U U w EC w - LC w 7 V O _° CL °L�O O w tm wO_N w N O J O w O Cj m m 3 L GO O C cOmC.+ o °�' o c C) v w" °uC) w ° i N ) w � w v v°i E o v w v L o bo win m in NL° ° , w° `4 wE � _E > o cm° o w w bo .O.NId m m O y� _O L C O_ m C N O h0 �_ N w L a+ O CD 0}' 7 O p �wil O c w o -o cu n m > c n o n E Y 3 ^ >w J w VI Q C w X E N _° Y m m m u a m° w V m E w w m° m c 3 in m Q L in -° m L w 'a -O Y w L w o w -c w w �n m L m Y > w 3 c >, 3 0 -o Z" w m E L Q w L y OL O m w a O m C O w w O L r m Q w m Y -° L �n > CD c w c = Y C vl L 'w Q E w w N O_ NO m `� m '6 m w w N L w .vl a+ V y w C L U C is O tCL o 0 m O_ v '6 O N Y .0 iii O_ L a Q V L L U aL.+ O �' N N C of L L i N y o c vm E ° a 0 t to ma c, _� yo ,_ O w �, = w c in w o °C° � t aci w s Y t v E L m m y c ? ami v m m a Y U _ —_ �p c Gl C 7 L EO b0 �/1 U <6 N O .� �"' �cp V�i O M N O_ i0 w O t w m >j >j 2 9 m � w L ¢ K m L L= :-" u �il m to � LL m m aL-+ l./ wu ~ aL+ N cA !n CL� sYs � L Ln Q. v •— Q3 n L mN L+ U Lo O�oLn �® let O ®®~ JL19 O aL a ad N N &A -PA •1y C4 A a V m = L m O L U Y s � = a W E vw u al L Q O Y O i L c O c i po ai m L Y (vCL L C cr CJ a5 CO m< m n Y 0- ate., a`i y Y tmn a p E E C N m (j 0 C W S 0 Q! Q Y ..O 3 a�i a " a- > to c -O m L. 4 O eoam C C Y O _c3 A� N a) V L o m m cu " a U N Y a C a m i m al tLa V E E d O 0-6 Y C 0_ � O m O� T � i O A = m O m + L > O m N a1 3 v E E _ i O O N al > Q O i U tLA bo Co m aEaOv v¢manmv W v CO co W O MMO 7 W y `� nr ✓zOI m W �I U E m ai iA C LA c Y a 0 L m c c O m O y_ m L to Y 7 C to m d i 0 V m it 0 to w= m W.0 N O m E O a aJ y m vi m o @J c = aj X' O L Y a/ bow C NUS p O m '�n �' i �� p aj ci' C O CL mN O m a, i E 'o i o aj A O Y O u i C N 7 w OV ra n :_ Gj w L C a1 m U •M L b-0 vL " v m C Y EvLa O` Y aia i> O O � L �w in > m ' U L C Y C y C u Y -" L mo'o•amE VI Y is O C 1 m N Y Ln al O= Y L °w N y -NO v L w O_ m tp Y O u m pOa U Cu • a s Y w VI m i m O L ^ �I ) m Y u to •N E 'C i L a) aJ w x O = Y L Y v u a) a i Y b m (, m L m E aci � '3 0 `6 bo o •- o ,,, i W-0 Q 4 -0 Q S Q a Ci..� O C E C m m m a" 0 aJ O O_ L 'C a% aJ �� O O L v u L i y _R O m C Ln U W U= L d c O C 0 Oc0 0 O 0 O O N NN+ N S N C V O °q c 3 o H o � R 75 T /O� yOjWl Q i� V T � O ryL •y N c d in H o o o �O +q -� c W! O U y h v 0 0 w E U gIMoJb qor 1 a t _ c E o,2 - $ E u v.' o t c c: Y a .� Y^ 3 n L` 1p o a o °' c m `o 0 2o V T r 1pl a o °1 o c o v L L d c '„ E W y Ep m r a a y p: « p Ei a v' o L o o r E a c C T a v o y o x ate LL mI E e'o m o N E x a a o n a a n o 0 ty O T L p a U « d L O .. a c _'. '� vi m C `O o L m E « a Y 3 a Y o -a m . c a n w u E El �! — m o `v ° ry E O Q a i.r O> o a •. y a c 3 FI `o `p '� v 319 ,a. .ac c a`+ « :, E v �. a a Vl N wt n W O Y K y aM W N a .C: Oi u O 1^ :En O C EV a' C Yn _ a o N V N O eq n C➢ C ?� M m L L Qi R O O - Z L a«« 3 w § o °° m L v m m w O u c o m e m `o o a E m L N «= .. E �?—a-' 3 L E r N N yvE a x: ❑ L •• 3 m x E `� cc g �' a ._ c a- oo v= x1n yKj O L O v N in N n C i p U • Y m a a O d 1/i FY Vi 1� Tl0 N C O E '" m y `a, a a i yw °1 N c_Y ^ m m W 0 O N O Id �tm y y p 0 �_ L m o t y S0 u cu m •%1 - i.l m c" a c c c a w E o o m n v w s o u ry M 0 << O o vai 3 m a m E ` m °`' s 41'T t E i o a 'w` spy. VJ ymg ` n^' w v x a s •• n ew °oO « a c t o w ni 'o y w m r 6'N ca N a 9 o s o m E Y d— Fa a E d a o v v o w m o m T 3 01 « N == w La, ® co 3 E y N m a o a `0 3 m E w c w m i - w u u i° o 0- t i, - N a s E E d a a E c p c c ao o a o m ori U : 4161 1 c L i+ wo m K c i .a. v y a° wc/a c ¢ O a O N a s 1SN c w ¢ i 0 a N a .o n i o o 'Y' o O a `w 'o 6 m o N m n ¢ m i v ¢ n ~ m ~ 0 E .L.. tL- u a N V 3 a O. c 4) C O 51 a o E 8 2 8 3 n 8 E a 6y x5 m n e 8 E E -S3 p g � a ° - � F n S S s d y e e d� e o .9 o 3' S V p Ei O 9 o o s R o ycy & a fl s .5 5 Sa s'm N N Y. t a) to ' m u N T +t+ Y u0 Q W E v c aci -0 OL�° Lu E m a>) E w 7 u o Ocr i a)N Q u t .N 7 to N C O— c F p 0-v -a D N -p ba t ra C —J a,Y C C C O N N • V -6 a)v M 7 t6 a' m¢ C 1n E O t C Y C U a) -0 o Q O —.i o Y E O EL p v O V V a C _ 0)C m w a C / 1a 4�- N > Y a, tO VJ N O aj p co O y� ba E `c -p a (n v�v°0�v ��0 0 p c L c o ^ , 2 O N O c a) y C L E -c O !a C a, CL ,+ 7 c to E L v c m ® c� >O U N .0 u Ou O_ C C h^ bO Q C V O T E CO WJ U C �, cc o �n vi a� S ® •N V U Y C 'Y V N ru E t010 Y v o �a o o Q Y O L C }' 2i V- c N GO O= i Y Y c C)u 0 Y C C C O w O O C C O UJ N C C T O V1 C to tt `t L N 7 N O O_ p N E w t0 u= t > j C N E-0 Y in N 0 •' -7 N O a) Q u bo L •� ® O 'O to C C p IA N .� a) -Q N 7 w Q E C �� •hn V C 7 E C to -CC O= E W � bCD I-_i C w CO -N a) 7 c O C p C p O bo IJ� N L Q On a t O o Q T C a) O u N 9 N R u VI Y iQ N Y V Y Y O_ L N M C. aJ E w to C 7 O 2 LA O Q a) En tn v to 0 d fp 7 C C 2 a, D C a) 0) W bA C 0 0 2 N a) L a) O- O U u U O E bo C _3 m N a) u D 0 En a1 w C m U N tA in (t u c ..0 U L N N LL Q 0 a /I0 0m§ @>Z 0 z m w/2\}2\ �0 > > > zZZ> g cn e) }k)a t\® LOE 39L >_ }>> j\\ \>\ \\\ r" {\\ Eto #j4 %GLx q «^) a\7 >{i j°° CD LM-j 100 \>m {\\ cn \ § \ }/ >m D _ CD \ o � � � � /" \ { E to 222§\)/\�\ 1. [ ! a \ ` aL 0q§q7 ~, § \§\)}\}}\\2) /»R:§)W!§!a=&»aQ¥a \: ;d¥to \� ,#!to )§))}))7))§))}25 /@ d � n |c \ --- - Z / § - to ®{ § f` `5 /ae»§2&q!%§� # It