Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDANCE - 60A2525 Main St —The Compound Impact of ALREADY APPROVED Developments Population and Vehicle Calculation Assumptions for APPROVED Developments November, 2019 NEW Residents Apartments: 3678 units: 625 Studio / 1949 lbdrm / 883 2bdrm / 2213bdrm 1. Not having the unit mix and maximum tenants allowed per unit for each development plan iteration,/ used what VDC proposed for The Addinaton at 347 units and confirmed at their 915119 communitv meetina: a. 70% Studio/1 bdrm i. 18% Studios - 2 people max/unit = 625 x 2 =1250 new neighbors ii. 52% 1 bdrm - 2 people max/unit = 1949 x 2 = 3898 new neighbors b. 30%2-3 bdrm L 24% 2 bdrm - 4 people max/unit = 883 x 4 = 3532 new neighbors ii. 6% 3bdrm - 5 people max /unit = 221 x 5 = 1105 new neighbors Condos: 74 units: 37 2bdrm / 37 3bdrm I used a 50/50 2 bdrm / 3 bdrm mix (given units for purchase tend to be larger) and the VDC tenant maximum proposed for The Addington: 1. 50% 2 bdrm - 4 people max/unit = 37 x 4 = 148 new neighbors 2. 50% 3bdrm - 5 people mas/unit = 37 x 5 = 185 new neighbors NEW Guests/Day Hotels: 535 units Hotel occupancy: 79% occupancy rate = .79 x 535 = 423 occupied rooms/night • Supported by Bisnow's Orange County 2018 information: https://www.bisnow.com/orange- county/news/hotel/report-orange-county-los-angeles-californias-hotel-market-continues-to-trend-upward- 91234 o "In Orange County, the occupancy rate is 79% to 82% depending on the time and revenue per available room is $155 to $161, according to CBRE." • Total guests —1 person max/hotel room = 423 x 1 = 423 new guests Total NEW Residents and Guests/day = 10,541 ADDITIONAL Vehicles Apartments/Condos 1. Studio/lbdrm — 2 vehicles x (625 + 1949 units) = 5148 additional vehicles a. Assumption: For 2 tenant max units there will be 2 working and driving adults 2. 2 bdrm — 2 vehicles x (883 + 37 units) = 1840 additional vehicles a. Assumption: For 4 tenant max units there will be 2 working and driving adults 3. 3 bdrm — 3 vehicles x (221 + 37) = 774 additional vehicles a. Assumption: For 5 tenant max units there will be 3 working and driving adults Hotel 1. Hotel rooms —1 vehicle for 80% of occupied hotel rooms —1 x (.8 x 423) = 338 additional vehicles a. Assumption: Only 80% of occupied hotel rooms house a guest requiring a vehicle. Total ADDITIONAL vehicles/day: 8100 Salas, Diana From: Christine Denny-Helvig <cdennyhelvig@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 4:17 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: 2019 Data Shows 2525 Main St. is a Viable Commercial Office Space Location Attachments: 2525-Compound Impact of ALREADY APPROVED Developments - Assumptions.docx Importance: High Dear Santa Ana City Council Members, I realize it's possible that many of you have made up your minds regarding how you will vote on the developer's proposal for 2525 North Main St. this Tuesday, 1/21/20. On the chance that any of you are still willing to consider recently published analyses reflecting 2019 data, I would like to share results of research performed byJLL, the second largest commercial real estate services firm in the world, which speaks to the point that 2525 is an ideal site for NEW low- to mid -rise office space, the leasing of which outpaced high rise office space by a 6 to 1 ratio in Orange County in 2019. I encourage you to read the article it in its entirety: https://www.globest.com/2020/01/10/mid-rise-product-leads-office-leasing-in- oc/?slreturn=20200019004148 Some interesting quotes (underlining is mine): "The surge in office leasing activity for this product segment is largely attributed to new construction activity." "We are seeing a lot of activity in the new buildings, Jeff Ingham, senior managing director at JLL, tells GlobeSt.com. "2019 today on the office side are very much looking for the new latest and greatest projects that have all of the amenities and indoor -outdoor space Those are the things that are really attractive to employees and drive retention." "Tech companies and medical companies are leading the leasing activitv in mid -rise office space. These companies are expanding and leading demand in general in the market and they gravitate toward mid - rise and low-rise assets. 'If you look at the groups that are leasing low rise space, the bulk are tech, medical device and life science -type companies; says Ingham. 'There has also been a lot of demand in co -working as well. Our local market growth is also in those three categories."' In addition, 4Q19 analysis by VoitWorks quotes that North Orange County had the lowest vacancy rate (7.17%) in Orange County in 2019 (https://voitworks.com/2020/01/commercial-real-estate-news/voits-g4-2019-oc- office-ma rket-re port-2020-forecast-just-re leased/): "Nearly 1.39M SF of space has been delivered in the OC office market since Q12019, expanding the office base by 1.2%. This has contributed to the uptick in overall vacancy. Direct / sublease space (unoccupied) finished the quarter at 11.44%, up 48 basis point year -over -year. North Orange County posted the lowest vacancy rate at 7.17%, while the Airport Area and Central County had vacancy rates greater than 12% at the end of fourth quarter. Higher vacancy in the Airport Area is mainly due to its concentration of new deliveries still in the initial lease -up phase." With the build out of the already approved housing developments within .5 miles of 2525, the immediate area will see population growth of over 10,000 residents (based upon the developer's quoted projected unit mix and occupancy rates for the proposed 2525 development - attached), many of whom will fit the highly educated profile of the target tech and medical company workforce with the required salaries to pay the anticipated market rate rents. Add to that the existing working population in the area and any company won't have far to look for a workforce which would love to walk to work. This, in turn, would help to mitigate the increased traffic, infrastructure wear and tear, and pollution which is expected with the additional population. In addition, it would do much to activate Santiago Park as people discover it on their walk to work, something we have been told by the City is necessary in order to help address the volume of homeless in the area. The Impact of SCAG Requirements: When it comes to the SCAG numbers, Santa Ana has exceeded its mandated goals for the current reporting period. I encourage the City Council to fight the existing SCAG rule which does not allow cities to count its housing overage against the next reporting period's requirement. This rule is a disincentive for cities to address the housing crisis with any speed. No city in its right mind will agree to push forward with providing housing that might possibly put itself over SCAG's requirement for the existing reporting period. We cannot be the only city in this predicament, which should allow us to join forces to make a logical argument. It is time to mitigate the impact of the approved developments and accompanying population increase with a viable solution: a marketable and much needed walk -to -work location. Please consider the needs of both the approved developments' new residents and those who have lived here for many years. Thank you for your time, Christine Denny-Helvig Park Santiago Resident 112112020 Search (/search/) Mid -Rise Product Leads Office Leasing in OC I GlobeSt 10 _(https://www.fa ceboo k.co m/G to bestcom) _(bttPS7//twitter.com/GlobeStcom) .(hLt_tps://www.linkedin.com/compa-ny-/globest- COMI) _ M50 promoCode=REM'LIMITED&refDomain=store gLai: PROMOCO DE=REM:LI MITED&RE FDO MAI N=ST01 MARKETS (/MARKETS/) SECTORS (/SECTORS/) TECHNOLOGY (/TECHNOLOGY/) BEST PRACTICES (/BEST -PRACTICES/) REAL ESTATE FORUM (/REAL-ESTATE-FI Mid -Rise Product Leads Office Leasing in 01 In 2019, mid- and low-rise office product led office leasing activity by a ratio of six to one compared to high-ris( properties. By Kelsi Maree Borland (/author/profile/Kelsi-Maree-Borland/) I January 10, 2020 at 04:00 AM (bitp ./s /images.globest.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/311/2020/01/Screen- Shot-2020-01-01-at-2.2812-PM png)Mid-and low-rise product led office leasing activity in 2019. According to a report from JLL, the volume of mid- and low-rise office leases greater than 30,000 square feet was greater than high-rise product by a ratio of six to one. The surge in office leasing activity for this product segment is largely attributed to new construction activity. "We are seeing a lot of activity in the new buildings," Jeff Ingham, senior managing director atjLL, tells GlobeSt.com. "Clients today on the office side are very much looking for the new latest and greatest projects that have all of the amenities and indoor -outdoor space. Those are the things that are really attractive to employees and drive retention." Three major mid- and low-rise properties came to the market this year, including Spectrum Terrace from the Irvine Co. and Boardwalk. Want to continue reading? Become a Free ALM Digital Reader. Trending Stories 1 Rentership Communities W Start to Pop Up More This (/2020/01/16/rentership= communities-will-start-to-pl up -more -this -year ) 2 How the Government Disto the Housing Market (/2020/01/17/how-the- government-distorts-the- housing-marke ) 3 Bridge Investment Allocate $4.5B to Multifamily and D Strategies (/2020%01/17/bridge. i nvestment-allocates-4.5b-t mu Itifamily-and-debt- strategies 4 Walgreen Exec. Named Americas COO of WorkspaA Consultancy Firm The Insta Group (/2020/01/17/walgre exec-named-americas-coo-c workspace -provider -the - instant -group/) 5 Tricon Capital Plans to Dou Down on the US Housing Market This Year (/2020/01/16/tricon-capita I- plans-to-double-down-on-th us -housing -market -this -yea https:ltw .globest.com/202O/Ol/l O/mid-rise-product-leads-office-leasing-in-ocl?sireturn=20200021105731 1/4 1/21/2020 Mid -Rise Product Leads Office Leasing in OC I GlobeSt ONCE YOU ARE AN ALM DIGITAL MEMBER, YOU'LL RECEIVE: Unlimited access to GlobeSt and other free ALM publications Access to 15 years of GlobeSt archives Your choice of GlobeSt digital newsletters and over 70 others from popular sister publications 3 free articles* across the ALM subscription network every 30 days Exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications REGISTER Now _(hops://store.law coo/registration/defaUlt.aspx? rise-product-leads-office-leasing-innoc//) exclude premium content have an account? sign In f SHARE W SHARE Kelsi Maree Borland Kelsi Maree Borland is a freelance writer and editor living in Los Angeles whose work has appeared in such publications as Travel+Leisure, _( autho profile/Kelsi-Maree-Borland/). Angeleno and Los Angeles Magazine. ®, More from this author — (/author/profile/Kelsi-Maree-Borland/) Dig Deeper Orange county_(/Markets/Orange-CountyQ Office /Sectors/Offceq Capital Markets (/Cdnital-Markets-Globest -To pics/) Leasing(/Le ingp est(/Markets/W—es tf) hftps://www.globast.mm/2020/01/10/mid-rise-product-leads-office-leasing-in-oc/?slreturn=20200021105731 2/4 1/2112020 Mid -Rise Product Leads Office Leasing in OC I GlobeSl Recommended Stories These Are San Diego's Most Active Office Markets (https://www.g lobest.com/2020/01/17/these- a re-san-d iegos-most-active-office- markets/) KELSI MAREE BORLAND (/AUTHOR/PROFILE/KELSI-MAREE- BORLAND/) I JANUARY 17,2020 Known as life science and tech hubs, UTC, Eastgate and Del Mar Heights led office leasing activity in San Diego lastyear. One Twelfth @ Twelfth Undergoes Recapitalizing and Refinancing (https://www.g lobest.com/2020/01/17/one- twelfth-twelfth-u ndergoes- recapitalizing-a nd-refi na nci ng/). LISA BROWN (/AUTHOR/PROFILE/LISA-BROWN/) I JANUARY 17, 2020 The significant liquidity provided to Gemini Rosemont through this transaction will be used to acquire additional class -A assets in coastal and tech -centric markets in keeping with its acquisition mandate. When CMBS Still Works for Retail Deals (https://www.g lobest.co m/2020/01/08/when- cm bs-sti I I-works-for-reta i I -deals/). KELSI MAREE BORLAND (/AUTHOR/PROFILE/KELSI-MAREE- BORLAND/) I JANUARY 08, 2020 Resource Cente (bRp://globest tradepu6 com/free WHITE PAPER SPONSORED BY ADP Alternative Data Sets Streng Commercial Real Estate Dec! Making (http://g I obest.tradepub.com CRE professionals are relying mor data and analytics to drive decisio making. Discover how alternative provide a competitive edge on eve from choosing the best location fc next development opportunity to optimizing existing real estate foe Browse More Resources , (/resources/) Overall, life companies are still preferred to CMBS on retail deals, but in some cases CMBS works better. https://www.globest.com/2020/01/10/mid-rise-product-leads-office-leasing-in-oc/?slreturn=20200021105731 3/4 1/21/2020 Mid -Rise Product Leads Office Leasing in OC I GlobeSt GlobeSt Don't miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed commercial real estate decisions. Join GlobeSt.com now! Free unlimited access to GlobeSt.com's trusted and independent team of experts who provide commercial real estate owners, investors, developers, brokers and finance professionals with comprehensive coverage, analysis and best practices necessary to innovate and build business. Exclusive discounts on ALM and GlobeSt events. Access to other award -winning ALM websites including ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com. Join GlobeSt.Cotn -(fps//store law com/registration/defaultasp.X2 promoCode=REM�LIMITED&source=https//www globest com/2020/01/10/mid-rlse- p roduct-leads-office-leas) ng-I noc/). Already have an account? Sjgn In Now (ftUp_s•//store law cam/re9istration/logInAspZ7 promoCode=REM•LIMITED&source=https://www.globest.com/2020/01 /10/mid-rise- p rod u ct-leads-office-leasing-i n-i n=oc -(0 FOLLOW US ON-(btips�/twww.facebook.com/Globestcoru) _(hUps•//twitter com/GlobeStmm) _(bttpsIAw Ilnkedin com/mmp(g obest-c ( ss/) Abou[GlobeSt f/static/about-us0 / Contact Us (/static/contact-us/) /Site Map(sitemap/) /Advertise Wlth Us (/static/advertise-with-us/) / Terms of Service(httRaZMLAwaim com/terms-of-use/),/ Privacy PoViLy_(hops,//wwwalm.com/prlvacy_gq ccy-new/) Copyright ® 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved. https://www.globest.com/202O/0l/l O/mid-rise-product-leads-office-leasing-in-ocl?slreturn=20200021105731 4/4 1/2112020 Volt's Q4 2019 OC Office Market Report & 2020 Forecast —Just Released • Orange County Office Space I Commercial Real Estate I To... v®itworks (https://voitworks.com/) Volt's Q4 2019 OC Office Market Report & 2020 Forecast - Just Released! It, STE FAN New Decade. Same Cycle. 2019 was another good year for the OC office market. A diversified, well-educated employment base continues to keep the office market on firm footing. Consistent demand has kept lease rates and sale prices on an upward trend notwithstanding the significant spike in speculative office development over the past two years. This year technology tenants are expected to dominate leasing, which Isn't surprising because they accounted for 22% of the activity through the first half of 2019. Interest in flexible office space will continue to grow, but at a much slower pace thanks to the recently botched WeWork IPO. Political activity continues to impact the overall CRE outlook. The House has passed the USMCA (NAFPA 2.0) and it is expected to be signed into law in January. Many believe the new law will strengthen U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico. Tax incentives for energy -efficient commercial buildings have been extended, allowing owners to claim a deduction of up to $1.80 /SF for qualifying systems. Of great concern going forward is the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act, which will likely be on the ballot in November. This controversial initiative would remove Prop 13 protection for most commercial properties. Beginning with the 2021-22 tax year, commercial property would be subject to periodic reassessment to full market value even if it does not change hands. Tenants subject to operating expense pass -through could be forced to absorb huge tax Increases, while investors who cannot pass those increases along would see a decline in property values due to lower NOL Looking ahead, I'm keeping an eye on these key market drivers: #I: Interest rates will remain low. The Fed's three rate cuts in 2019 made clear its intentions to avoid recession. We expect interest rates to remain stable going forward, which makes 2020 a good year to acquire or refinance office properties. #2: The creative and progressive design trends that have dominated the OC office market since 2015 will continue. The latest iteration is the'butdood' office and developers have taken note. Employees, predominantly millennials and Gen Z, expect an excellent experience at work, which means spaces with high levels of choice, variety and balance. #3: The alternative investment sector of CRE will remain strong. Data center, self -storage and medical office activity has doubled since 2008, making up approximately 12% of all CRF, activity. As this trend continues, expect to see adaptive reuse projects growing in popularity. Old factories, mills, schools, vacant retail boxes and more are being converted into flex space and residential housing. Programs like Opportunity Zones or the Low-income Housing Tax Credit will further support those efforts, Barring a catastrophic economic disturbance, 2020 should be another solid year for Orange County's economy and commercial real estate market. OC Office Market Overview The OC office market has stabilized into a relatively strong and stable position. Vacancy remains manageable, but has ticked up slightly in the past year. Technology, Financial Services, and Health Services firms have driven a significant amount of recent leasing activity, However, expanding companies are leveraging new workplace technologies to save money by increasing the number of employees for each square foot of space they lease, and that has had an impact on overall absorption and transaction velocity. Tenants in Class A and B buildings who leased space early in the recovery cycle are getting sticker shock at renewal time, as rent growth, which has moderated in recent quarters, is up substantially over the past 5 years. To mitigate higher per square foot occupancy costs, many tenants are moving down in building class and taking less space by switching to more open workspace designs. The market has seen modest levels of supply additions in recent years compared with previous development cycles, but several of the Class A projects delivered over the past two years are leasing up more slowly than expected. Net absorption, though still in positive territory, has been softening over the past several years. Capital market conditions remain solid, and while sales volume is down from its record level back in 2016 and 2017, it remains robust. Cap rates remain at or near historical lows, especially for high quality Class A and B assets. Vacancy Rates Nearly 1.39M SF of space has been delivered in the OC office market since Q12019, expanding the office base by 1.2%. This has contributed to the uptick in overall vacancy. Direct / sublease space (unoccupied) finished the quarter at 11,44%, up 48 basis point year -over -year. North Orange County posted the lowest vacancy rate at 7.17%, while the Airport Area and Central County had vacancy rates greater than 12% at the end of fourth quarter. Higher vacancy in the Airport Area is mainly https://voitworks.com/2020/01/commercial-real-estate-news/voits-q4-2019-oc-offce-market-report-2020-forecast-just-released/ 1/4 1/21/2020 Volt's Q4 2019 OC Office Market Report & 2020 Forecast — Just Released! • Orange County Office Space I Commercial Real Estate I Te due to its concentration of new deliveries still in the initial lease -up phase. Lease Rates Rent growth in the OC office market leveled off in 2019. The average asking lease rate in Orange County rose by just 0,37% over the past year compared with 1.7% nationwide. The average asking FSG monthly asking lease rate lost $0.09 In the fourth quarter, ending the period at $2.74. The average quoted rental rate for Class A space was $3.10 per square foot, compared with the Class B asking rate of $2.47 per square foot. Transaction Activity Slow growth in the regions labor force has resulted in hiring challenges for many firms, and that may be impacting transaction velocity. Orange County's labor market remains historically tight, with the unemployment rate holding at 2.5%. The total square feet leased and sold in the fourth quarter was approximately 3AM SF, a significant slowdown from the 5.OM SF of transactions in the fourth quarter of 2018. Downsizing into more open workspace to increase headcount and appeal to younger workers is also a factor. Employment The unemployment rate in the OC office market was 2.5% in November 2019, unchanged from a revised 2.5% in October, and below the year-ago estimate of 2.7%. This compares with an unadjusted unemployment rate of 3.7% for California and 3.3% for the nation during the same period. Localjob growth was evident across all subsectors but financial services (up 1,200 jobs) and Government (up 2,200 jobs) led the way as the year ended. Construction Total space under construction in the OC office market ended the year at 795,177 square feet. In Costa Mesa, construction is underway at The Press located at 1375 Sunflower Drive. This former L.A. Times printing facility is being converted into more than 300,000 square feet of creative office space to accommodate the shift in demand from businesses looking to recruit and retain a younger workforce. The Source, located in the Irvine Spectrum, offers a two -building concept with common atrium connectivity and more than 70,000 total square feet of rentable space. Irvine Company's build -to -suit for Alteryx Inc. at Spectrum Terrace 2 is also in the works. The company will occupy the bulk of the project's 340,000 square foot second phase. The first phase is fully leased. Absorption Co -working tenants like WeWork have leased millions of square over the past few years and the current slowdown in that sector is partly responsible for the recent decline in new transaction velocity. Orange County office occupancy grew by 167,588 square feet in the final quarter, bringing the year-to-date gain in occupied space up to 707,160 square feet. The Airport Area submarket accounted for 260,089 square feet of that total. By product type, Class A office led the way with a net gain of 314,790 square feet in just the fourth quarter. Notable transactions included: Avanir Pharmaceuticals (103,879 square feet in Aliso Viejo), County of Orange Assessor (69,151 square feet in Orange), and WeWork (71,076 square feet in Irvine). FORECAST Lease Rates Rent growth may pick up again as the absorption of the remaining first generation space gets leased up. With fewer attractive alternatives in the market, rent growth should return to an annualized rate of 2-3% over the course of the year. Vacancy Rates We anticipate that the overall vacancy rate will remain in the 11-12% range over the next three quarters, but the Class A sector will run somewhat higher due to its higher concentration of first generation space. Overall Signs of a global economic slowdown, concerns over US -China trade relations and a decline in the US GDP growth rate motivated the Fed to cut its benchmark Federal Funds Rate 3 times in 2019. That effort to stimulate consumer spending and business investment seems to be working. Equity markets responded by rising to new highs and the spread between short- and long-term US Treasuries widened again after a dangerous inversion earlier in the year. The latest estimates for domestic GDP growth for 2020 are running in the low 2% range, which should be enough to keep the current economic recovery on track. For more information on the OC office apace market and how to capitalize on real estate opportunities to grow your business, contact Stefan Rogers 949,263.5362 / smgers®voitco.com. Click HERE to download Volts Q4 2019 OC Office Space Market Report. (hhttl;.V/voitworks com/oc4g19off ) #Forecast(https://voitworks.com/tag/forecast/), #OC oittps://voltworks.com/tag/oc/), #office space (https://voitworks.com/tag/office-spaceA, #orange county (https://voitworks.com/tag/orange-county/), #volt quarterly market reports (https://voltworks.com/tag/voit-quarterly-market-reports/), #Voit Real Estate Services (https://voitwort(s.com/tag/volt-real-estate-services/) https://voitworks.com/2020/01/commercial-real-estate-news/voits-q4-2019-oc-office-market-report-2020-forecast-just-released/ 2/4 1/2112020 Volt's Q4 2019 OC Office Market Report & 2020 Forecast — Just Released! • Orange County Office Space I Commercial Real Estate I To... Related articles November 15, 2018 May 31, 2019 October 24, 2018 Searching Orange County Office Space? Talonvest Upscales to New Creative Office Sposa Releaeeal! Volt Real Estate Services Q3 2018 South( Orange County office space is readily available if }Td!a :nva%tv(1eIsStddew Creative Office Space in Irvi2beck out Voies latest Southern California office market vacal (htfps://voitworks.com/2018/t1/commercial-rea(#rtSj>at$f�Etm�s�ace/imf&(it9yf@Yr�d�aheacdlyiefEQH7c�ha�j8✓mtsmreks3u��G�B�kPFltl3ifite®rft:frlbnea$tee(m�}Iesattae market -vacancy -rents -map/) Share this article r SHARE ON FACEBOOK (HTTP://WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/SHARE.PHP?U=HTTPS://VOITWORKS.COM/2020/0l/COMMERCIAL-REAL-ESTATE-N EWS/VOITS-Q4-20 v SHARE ON TWITTER (HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/SHARE?URL=HTTPS.//VOITWORKS.COM/2020/01/COMMERCIAL-REAL-ESTATE-NEWS/VOITS-Q4-2019-OC-OFFIC P SHARE ON PINTEREST (HTTP://PINTEPEST,COM/PIN/CREATE/BUTTON/?URLmHT-rPS://VOITWORKS.COM/2020/01/COMMERCIAL-REAL-ESTATE-NEWS/VOITS-( 0 Comments on "Voit's Q4 2019 OC Office Market Report & 2020 Forecast -Just Released!" LEAVE A REPLY You must be Logged in (https: (/voitworks comI_login.php?redirect to=httns%3A%2C%2rvoitworks.corn%2C2020%2F01%2Fcommercial-real-estate- news%2pvoits-o4-2019-oc-office-market-report-2020-forecast-just-released%2F), to post a comment. ABOUT US THE VOITWORKS GROUP IS POWERED BY VOLT REAL ESTATE SERVICES CA DRE LIC. 01333376 REAL PEOPLE. REAL SOLUTIONS W W W.VOITCO.COM CONTACT US 2020 MAIN STREET, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92614 INTEL@VOITWORKS.COM (MAILTO:INTELOVOITWORKS.COM) https://voitworks.com/2020/0l/wmmercial-real-estate-news/voits-q4-2019-oc-office-market-report-2020-forecast-just-released/ 3/4 1/21/2020 Volt's Q4 2019 OC Office Market Report & 2020 Forecast — Just Released! • Orange County Office Space ( Commercial Real Estate ( To... 833.864,8967 (TEL+1833-664-8969) OUR OFFICE LOCATIONS IRVINE (HQ) (HTTPS://VOITWORKS.COM/ORANGE-COUNTY-OFFICE/) N E W PO RT BEACH (HTTPS://VOIT W ORKS.COM/NEW PORT -BEACH -OFFICE/) ANAHEIM (HTTPS://VOITWORKS.COM/ANAHEIM-OFFICE/) LOS ANGELES(HTTPS://WWW.GOOGLE.COM/SEARCH?SAFE=OFF&RLZ=IC9BKJA_ENUS591U5592&HL=EN- US&EI=AMCOW53W HYBYJ WTSPQZWCW&INS=FALSE&Q=VOITWORKS+LOS+ANGELES+CA&OQ=VOITWORKS+LOS+ANG&G5_L=MOBILE-C WS-W IZ- SERP.1,1.3312US31160.2554.9299..9535,..0.0..0.141.1644.1J13.-_.0....1.........35139.EO9ZYPGALQKitTREX=M T:LCL_AKP,RC_FINAV,RC_LUDOCIDS:11990323183365545535,RC_Q:VOITWORKS,P ONTARIO (HTTPS://W W W.G000LE.COM/SEARCH?Q-VOITWOPKS,ONTARIO&RLZ=IC9BKJA_ENUS591US592&OQ=VOITWORKS+ONTAPIC&AQS=CHPOME.,69157.5984JOJ9&H L=EN- US&SOLI RCE ID=CHROME-MOBILE&IE=UTF-BATREX=M T:LCL_AKP,RC_F:NAV,RC LU DOC IDS:8114090816518994495,RC_Q:VOITWOPKS,RU_Q:VOITWORKSI SAN DIEGO(HTTPS://WWW.000GLE.COM/SEARCH7SAFE=OFF&RLZ=IC98KJA_ENUSS91USS92&HL=EN- US&E1=92GOW_KJBOJCJCTROSHGBQ&INS=FALSE&Q=VOITWORKS+SAN+DIEGO&OQ=VOITWORKS+SAN+DIED&GS_L=MOBILE-GWS-WIZ- S E P P.1.0.33121.99400.105460..1095Y3...0.0..0.135.1894.4J13......0....1...,.....35I39J 331160.YF FYKV E- YTA#TR EX=MTLCL_AKP,RC_RNAV,RC_LU DOCID5:14909099938596203256,RC_Q:VOITW ORKS,RU_QNOITW ORKSI NAVIGATE CONTACT US (HTTPS://VOITWORKS.COM/IRVINE-OFFICE/I INTEL (HTTPS://VOITW(DRKS.COM/ORANGE-COUNTY-COMMERCIAL-REAL-ESTATE-NEWS/) FAQ'S (HT"rPS://VOITWORKS.COM/COMMERCIAL-TENANT-REPRESENTATION-SERVICES-FAQ/) GLOSSARY (HTTPS://VOITWOPKS.COM/COMMERCIAL-REAL-ESTATE-GLOSSARY/) SITE MAP (HT""UPS://VOITWORKS.COM/SITE-MAP/) PRIVACY POLICY & TERMS (HTTPS://VOITWORKS.COM/PRIVACY-POI-ICY/) & VoitWorb 2U1N (lrrvnge Cuwuy OIYir¢• Space Cnnvnercinl'1'enan[ IlUprcsemminn Arlvlcnrs https:/Ivoitworks.com/2020/0Ilcommercial-real-estate-news/voits-q4-2019- c-office-market-report-2020-forecast-just-released/ 414 Salas, Diana From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Fw: 1-21-2020 City Council Business Agenda Item 60A(1) and (2) 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET Forwarded Message ----- From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> To: eComments@santa-ana.org <ecomments@santa-ana.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020, 04:19:12 PM PST Subject: Fw: 1-21-2020 City Council Business Agenda Item 60A(l) and (2) 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ellen Koldewey <mrskold@yahoo.com> To: ecomments@santa-ana.org <ecomments@sama-ana.org> Cc: mpulido@santa-ana.org <mpulido@santa-ana.org>; jvillegas@santa-ana.org <jvillegas@santa-ana.org>; vsarmiento@santa- ana.org <vsarmiento@santa-ana.org>; jsolorio@santa-ana.org <jsolorio@sama-ana.org>; ciglesias@santa-ana.org <ciglesias@santa- ana.org>; David Penaloza <dpenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Phil Bacerra <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>; Sonia R. Carvalho <scalvalho@santa-ana.org>; kridge@santa-ana.org <Icridge@santa-ana.org>; Daisy Gomez <dgomez@santa-ana.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020, 02:30:08 PM PST Subject: 1-21-2020 City Council Business Agenda Item 60A(l) and (2) 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET CONSTITUENT REQUEST FOR ACTION ON 2525 NORTH MAIN STREET Greetings Mayor and Councilmembers,sLi As your constituent and a Santa Ana voter, I urge you to take the following actions on Business Agenda Item 60 Al) and 2): *Vote against the adoption of the zoning amendment and development agreement at the second reading of the ordinance. OR *Send the proposed ordinances to a ballot initiative measure to submit to the voters at a City-wide election. 60.41) VOTE AGAINST IME ADOPTION OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT AND DEVEIOPMENT AGREEMENT I continue to oppose the rezoning of this property to permit the building of the 2525 North Main Street residential complex. I appreciate the ongoing discussion of changes to be made in this project. However, significant problems remain. I agree with those who have said that this is a good project in a bad location. Our City has met or exceeded our State's regional housing assessment goals for all income levels of housing. The people of Santa Ana do not need to settle for this misplaced, high density, outsized housing project. I acknowledge there are ongoing conversations to reduce the number of units to be built. However, it is not necessary or helpful to your constituents, including those in need of affordable housing, to rezone this property to crowd this space with too many apartment units. As the units of the project will be priced too high to alleviate overcrowding in Santa Ana, the project will only increase the density of our City's housing. I wotdd like to seek a project for this property that will enhance the cultural uses of the property's neighbors on the North Mahn Street corridor the revitalized and transformed Main Street Mall, the Bowers Museum, the Santiago Park green spaces, and the Discovery Science Center. This potion of North Main Street should continue to be developed as a premier business location that is part of the exciting and inviting entry to our City already underway, that can be used and enjoyed by all in our City. I greatly appreciate and strongly support the need to attract new development to our City but believe that the financial benefit to our City from this development in terms of new general fund revenue will be significantly less than originally anticipated and will not justify the very real harm that rezoning for such high density residential units will do to our City. OR 60A 2) SEND TILE PROPOSED ORDINANCES TO A BALLOT INITIATIVE MEASURE TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS IN A CITY-WIDE ELECTION I believe that your constituents in the neighborhoods surrounding 2525 North Main Street are aware of, and opposed to, the 2525 North Main Street project. I believe that your constituents City-wide are concerned about City plans for building and development. If you have any doubt about your constituents' position on this project, please do not act on unverified or partial information. If you are concerned that those of us speaking against this project do not represent the will of your constituents and the best interests of the entire community, I implore you to submit the proposed ordinances directly to the voters. Through the ballot initiative, you can accurately survey the extent of support of all of the voters of Santa Ana for this project. Please do not burden your constituents with the enormous responsibility of gathering the estimated 16,000 signatures needed in 30 days for a referendum to send the ordinances to a City-wide vote to make our voices heard. Put the proposed ordinances on a City-wide election ballot. Empower the voters to speak and decide. MOVING FORWARD I urge you to bring our neighborhoods together now to complete a new General Plan. Our City has been a leader in reaching the state's regional housing assessment goals for all income levels of housing. However, in some of our high density development, we appear to be needlessly abandoning the agreed upon goals of our current General Plan without reaching consensus on new ones. As a result, constituents are pushing back. Our State's Department of Housing and Community Development reminds us that "(g)eneral plans serve as the local government's "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop ...housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements."I From my experience with this project and others, I have come to believe that completing a new General Plan is key to building constituent support for future housing development. CLOSING In closing, I ask you to oppose the 2525 North Main Street Addington residential development on second reading. Alternatively, I urge you to submit an initiative measure on the proposed 2525 North Main Street ordinances to the voters at a City-wide election. Let the voters of Santa Ana decide whether this project should be built. Moving forward, I ask you to lead our City to complete a new General Plan. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our City. Respectfully submitted, Mrs. Ellen Koldewey Santa Ana CA 92706 1 Califo nia Devartment of Housing and Community Development/Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements Salas, Diana From: D'Ambra, Mary <mdambra@discoverycube.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 5:28 PM To: eComment; City Council Subject: Discovery Cube Letter regarding 2525 N. Main St Project Attachments: Discovery Cube regarding 2525 N Main St Project.pdf Hello Councilmembers, Attached is a letter from Joe Adams to you regarding the Cube's support the project on 2525 Main St. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mary D'Ambra Sent on behalf of Joe Adams, CEO of Discovery Cube Discoverykience FOUNDATION or��gaco�ory .losa�paie:. Ckcan even Mary D'Ambra Administrative Assistant to the CEO Discovery Science Foundation Support Science t: (714) 913-5022 w: http://www.discoverycube.org a: 2500 N Main Street, Santa Ana, Ca, 92705 Eft Discovery Science FoundatiomO supports and operates Discovery CubeN) campuses in Orange County and Los Angeles County. Discovery Cube Orange County, Discovery Cube Los Angeles and Discovery Cube's Ocean QuestO are each 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. All Rights Reserved 0 2017 Discovery Science Foundation. 2500 N. Main St., Santa Ana, CA 92705 714.542.CUBE (2823) discoveryciabe.org January 17, 2020 Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Esteemed Councihnembers, I have the pleasure of serving as the CEO of the Discovery Cube for 17 years. As the staff leader of the Cube my time and efforts are to create a vision for the science center and make it a reality, During this time I helped to lead the fundraising efforts behind the Cube's $25•million expansion doubling our size and thus doubling our investment in the City of Santa Ana. Recognition for our work came in 2013 when Discovery Cube received the National Medal of Service from the White House. So you can see I'm proud, I'm invested, I care, and I have acted to make the Cube a top science center in the nation. The project at 2525 Main Street is important to the Discovery Cube as it solves our decade old parking problem and I am excited about this project for several reasons: Permanent Parking Solution • Currently the Cube operates under a Parking Management Plan, this development will provide 180 spaces which we will own outright making it a permanent solution to our parking needs. Irn_prpved Safety • For several years the Cube has used the parking lot at 2525 N. Main Street as an overflow lot for our patrons. This development will help organize foot traffic from the new parking lot to the Cube with wayfrnding signage on a dedicated sidewalk. This dedicated sidewalk will have a decorative safety barrier rail to protect young children from walking too close to Main Street. The crosswalk itself will be improved with the newest safety equipment featuring lights and sounds that activate when in use by pedestrians. At the crosswalk signal, a large staging area will be provided for families to congregate while they wait for the light. Additionally the dedicated sidewalk and parking lot will have lights providing a safe path of travel at night. Discovery Cube is a registered 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. All rights reserved ADlecovery Science Foundation. 2500 N. Main St., Santa Ana, CA 92705 714.542.CUB[ (2823) dlscoverycitbe.org Santiago Park Safety • The project includes improvements to the park that is in need of refurbishment, new equipment, and a thoughtful redesign that will make the park a safe place to visit. Years ago, we stopped sending field trip students to Santiago Park during lunch time because we felt it was too dangerous. Our alternative is for them to eat lunch sitting on the concrete floor so obviously we look forward to the time that it is safe enough that our students can go back to the par], for lunch, • The developer has offered to provide roving security throughout the Santiago Park neighborhood and the surrounding area. This will have a direct benefit to the Cube patrons and help ensure our daily visitors and staff are safe. Rocket Parking Lot • The existing parking lot North of the Cube is what we refer to as the Rocket Lot due to the Delta 3 Rocket on the corner. We have an option of building a parking structure on the Rocket Lot but it would cost significantly more and would only get us 150 additional spaces leaving us still short of our code requirement. Plus, during the construction time we would we be without the spots provided by this lot, putting our attendance at risk. In comparison the new lot on the corner of Main and Edgewood will give us 180 spaces (30 additional spaces), which is enough to meet our code requirement and not take our existing lots out of service. • Additionally our Rocket Lot will remain as an asset to the Cube ensuring our ability to grow future exhibition space to enhance our educational mission for years to come. I personally take great pride in the Discovery Cube and have dedicated my career, my voice, and my passion to creating a beautiful & impactful gem for the City of Santa Ana and the children of Orange County. I know that many of you truly care about the Cube and our mission as well and wanted you to know why we are in full support of the residential & parking lot project at 2525 North Main Street and hope that we have your full support as well. Thank you. 0J Adams CEO Discovery Cube Discovery Cube is a registered 501(c)3 nonpmtlt organization. All rights reserved ®Discovery Science Foundation. Salas, Diana From: Gomez, Daisy Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 5:02 PM To: Gomez, Daisy Cc: !City Clerk Subject: FW: Letter to the City Council re 2525 N. Main Attachments: Santa Ana City Council Letter re 2525 N. Main Street Multi -Family Project - 01.17.20.PDF Honorable Mayor and members of the Council, Please see attached communication for your review and consideration. Thank you, Daisy Gomez, MMC Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana I Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 I Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-5235 1 dgomez(plsanta-ana.org ,2020S 4 i i SANTA ANA COUNTS http://www.santa-ana.org/ http://www.ocvcte.com/ Please visit the online Holiday and Closed Friday Schedule at https://www.santa-ana.org/holiday-and- closed-friday-schedule. 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. This e-mail (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such, may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. From: Hori, Susan <SHori@manatt.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 3:17 PM To: Gomez, Daisy <dgomez@santa-ana.org> Cc: Sonia Carvalho (Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com) <Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com>; Storck, Lisa <LStorck@santa- ana.org>; Carvalho, Sonia R. <SCarvalho@santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org>; Fregoso, Vince <VFregoso@santa-ana.org>; Jeremy Cigulnick (jeremy@vineyardsdc.com) <jeremy@vineyardsdc.com>; ryan@vineyardsdc.com; Pam Sapetto<psapetto@sapettorealestate.com> Subject: Letter to the City Council re 2525 N. Main Please provide the attached correspondence to the City Council in connection with its consideration of the 2525 Main project — Item 60A on the Council's January 21, 2020 agenda. Susan Had Partner Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 D (714) 371-2528 F (714) 371-2571 SHori@manattcom manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to It, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please Immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. T51+ i� Janaury 17, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Santa Ana City Council Attn: Cleric of the Council (dgomcz@santa-ana.org) 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: 2525 N, Main Street Multi -Family Project (Addington Multifamily Residential Project) Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: Susan K. Hod Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (714) 371.2528 E-mall; shori@manatt.com This letter is submitted on behalf of our client, AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant"), the Applicant for the Addington multifamily project at 2525 N. Main Street (the "Project"), in response to comments made by Christine Denny-Helvig at the December 17, 2019, City Council hearing for the 2nd reading of the Project ordinances. Ms. Helvig's comments implied that the Applicant's original proposal to construct a 517 emit multi -family project was a sham as the Applicant never intended to construct that project. Rather, she criticized the considerable reduction in Project density offered by the Applicant by claiming that the Applicant intended to only build 272 units. Her comments were as follows: "In November 2017, you have the paperwork in front ofyou, at the request of the developer an economic analysis was delivered by the Concord Group for the 2525 Main Street property showing a 100% likelihood of delivering a projected 272 market rate units in 2019, not 517, 272 units. " She went on to say "so let's look at what the developer gave up from their original projection of 272 units, they gave up 16 units, They didn't come down by half They came to the table with twice as many as they originally projected. " Her allegation that a 272 unit project was always the number the Applicant intended to build, not the original proposed 517 units created considerable confusion and caused the City Council to continue the 2nd Reading to January 21, 2020, for clarification, The facts are considerably different. 095 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. manatk Santa Ana City Council Janaury 17, 2020 Page 2 First, what is the document that is being discussed? The "paperwork" that is referenced is a report titled, "Market Feasibility Assessment and Fiscal Impact Analysis for an Apartment Development at 2525 Main Street, Santa Ana, CA, Final Report (December 11, 2017)" prepared by The Concord Group. A copy is attached. Second, who prepared this study, what is the source of the study and why was it prepared? The Concord Group prepared this study for the Applicant. The Concord Group is a national firm that provides real estate advisory services to U.S, and international developers, homebuilders, financial institutions, and public -sector agencies. The study was prepared for the Applicant, and the Applicant submitted the study to the City. It is common practice for developers, including this Applicant, to have third party economic studies prepared to study the economic impacts and market data for a development proposal. The purpose of the study is to assess the feasibility of the proposed project or whether it should be changed to better address, among other factors, market demands. Third, has this study been submitted to the City? Yes, this study was submitted to the City and was attached as Exhibit 10 to the Staff Report prepared for the City Council hearing on February 5, 2019. The entire study, including the chart that was presented to the City Council at the December 17a' hearing was included in the materials distributed to the City Council in February 2019, The study is 52 pages, and can be found at: https://santaana.graiiieus.com/MetaViewer.php?view—id=2&clip_id=2225&meta—id=81955 Fourth, what information was presented to the Council and what did it say about the Addington (2525 Main) Project? Ms. Helvig selected one page from the 52 page report, and characterized the information inaccurately and presented it totally out of context, thereby creating considerable confusion, and grossly misrepresenting the facts about the Addington (2525 Main) Project, Ms. Helvig presented information about a multifamily project being developed in the City of Irvine at the corner of Main Street and Von Karman which has the same address — 2525 Main— and intentionally mislead the Council by claiming that it was the Addington (2525 Main) Project in Santa Ana. Intentional is a strong word, but the report included a map (described below) which clearly showed a project called "2525 Main" in the City of hvine. Ms. Helvig tools a 272 unit project that is clearly mapped as being located in the City of Irvine and misled the Council by claiming it was the Addington project in Santa Ana. manaft Santa Ana City Council Janaury 17, 2020 Page 3 Ms. Ilelvig selected page 75E-323, a copy of which is attached, from the section of the report titled, "Supply/Demand Outlook." This section presents information about the competitive market area in which the proposed Project is located, the demographics of the area (i.e., the potential renters who may be interested in living at the Project), what the occupancy rate is for other rental projects in the market area, and what other projects are in the development pipeline. On the prior page (75E-322), the report includes a map of other projects that are in the pipeline for development and which would compete with the Project for renters within the market area. By sheer coincidence, one of the projects that is being developed in the City of Irvine at the intersection of Main Street and Von Karman, is also called "2525 Main" in the Concord Group report. This project is labeled "6" on the map, in an area designated on the map as the Irvine Business Complex, and according to the map legend, consists of 272 market rate units. The location of the 2525 Main project in Santa Ana is designated with a big, yellow star on the map. A copy of the report cover page (page 75E-307), the map and table depicting and listing the Development Pipeline projects from the Concord Group report which was at pages 75E-322 and 323 of the February 19, 2019 Staff Report are attached. Ms. Helvig only discussed the table at page 75E-323 with the Council. The table provided more information about the projects shown on the map on the prior page. Included in the table is the 2525 Main project in Irvine which was estimated to enter the market in 2018, with 272 market rate units. In short, the 272 units that Ms. Helvig claimed were the Applicant's original intention to build was in fact another developer's project in Irvine. At no time during this Project's entitlement history was the Applicant "hiding" a 272 unit project that it really wanted to build. The Applicant filed 4 submittals with the City; none of which proposed 272 units. Those 4 submittals proposed: 517 units, 496 units, 347 units and the current one for 256 units. The reductions made by the Applicant have all been done to address the concerns of the community, and not part of a secret plan to build a 272 unit project. Conclusion From the inception, there has been a pattern and practice of misrepresentation of the Project details by the Project opponents. So much so, that the Applicants have been forced to present a "Myths and Facts" matrix at the prior Council hearing where the Project was approved. The delays and damages attributed to this calculating and deliberate path of deceit are significant. Santa Ana City Council Janaury 17, 2020 Page 4 We urge the Council to not be misled by the false information being presented for the sole purpose of confusing you about the Project, and urge the Council to approve the 2" s reading of the ordinances on January 21, 2020. Verytrulyyours, Susan K. Hori Enclosures: Pages 75E-307, 322 and 323 cc: Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Lisa Storck, Esq, Minh Thai Vince rregoso Jeremy Ogulnick Ryan Ogulnick Pamela Sapetto 325722819.1 C- D 0 ce ®$ No w O O z M Ige! �.oi qV'W �W��WZ�Zw NVa1 O L P �.!. W 0 W (nwno N J O ®_ Z 2 Z < Co 0 S f- Q xW Z 0 N N W Z Z N � Q W C7 75E-307 •4 n" wbVV 4f L(^. �flilo . ..-g uy rmmll g SFii%11rtaJ¢it d•V � -(r,. ♦ 6 u ,j D\tl Bl!fIIP104j W NA A. S Li rvP. � + , froro Rz a < [ nxvu+Jsnid G, e C PA St`Lr t �4 a ^ SPlalaecl A,. y F i• a _ $ C n.^il stun nb't a 3#Y' �t� l L's1 h,V� G d X Sflinl A'. b �, i`Cl n C 'intsl ilrcei H c d K ® rt n fn Gf Alin.ru iili.r.In .Fun; N ry bio.Il Sl l� 20 q IT IHIwBN Nun•uY � O m i rt 6llypi.L � S N IW sa, p uwNM O h V N1¢�5 Rf �i:11+tM 75E-322 i ME�a 4R M IN HE v P-PH .��$��ba pp VV oo OO ryp gl �" N I O m M W N N N N N N M yy I^ W w N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �uiaa �I V �n V V �n vin van hY� non .n �n vi v� W a L q � 3 � U gg in � gg ti �o daOtiOpapp NzlwSW_2OzO u N w e b �§ 9 Ixac�c7 h to O 9 atz "s Nzx''jZ "Dp.3Yq� h az I Salas, Diana From: timrush@bhhscaprops.com Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:42 PM To: eComment Subject: 01/21/20 Council Meeting RE 2525 N. Main Street Development Mayor & Councilmembers; I again implore you all to vote against this project. We have not had such sustained community opposition to a project in nearly twenty years. Do the right thing....... vote NO on this project!!! Sincerely, Tim Rush Wilshire Square 1225 S. Broadway ST Orozco, Norma From: Viola R. Fennell <Viola.Fennell@ndlf.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 4:53 PM To: City Council; eComment Cc: Pulido, Miguel; Villegas, Juan; Penaloza, David; Solorio, Jose; Sarmiento, Vicente; Iglesias, Cecilia; Bacerra, Phil; ecomments@santa-ana.org; Charles S. Krolikowski; Stephanie L. Talavera Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item No. 60A Attachments: Ltr to City re Objections to Item No. 60A.PDF All, Attached please find Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development's public comment on agenda item no. 60A. Thank you, NEWMEYER DILLIDN 40 CELEBRATING 35 YEARS • 1984-2019 Viola R. Fennell Legal Administrative Assistant 949.271.7297 1 Viola.FennelI@ndif.com Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 newmeyerdIIlion. com ©91® NEWMEYER DILLION 4/ January 21, 2020 VIA HAND DELIVERY AT MEETING & VIA E-MAIL CITYCOUNCIL(cDSANTA-ANA.ORG & ECOMMENTS(cDSANTA-ANA.ORG W/ENCLS Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street Fifth Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 854 7000 Charles S. Krolikowski Charles. Krolikowski@ndlf.com Re: Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development ("SACRD") Public Comment on Agenda Item No. 60A Magnolia at the Park Project or the "Addington" at 2525 N. Main Street ("Project") Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development ("SACRD"), a coalition of interested property owners in the City of Santa Ana ("City'), submits this comment for inclusion in the record on Agenda Item No. 60A, set for hearing before the Santa Ana City Council ("Council") tonight, at this regular meeting on January 21, 2020. By way of brief background, Agenda Item No. 60A presents Council with two alternatives. First, Council may approve a second and final reading of Ordinance Nos. NS-2979 and NS-2980 ("Option One"). If approved, Option One will adopt Development Agreement No. 201E-01 ("DA-2018-01") with AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant") and Amendment Application No. 2018-10 ("AA-2018-10") to establish Specific Development No. 93 ("SD-93") for the Magnolia at the Park Project or the "Addington," located at 2525 N. Main Street (the "Project"). Alternatively, Council may discuss and direct staff to prepare an initiative measure for consideration at its next regular meeting, which will submit the proposed legislative enactments to the City's voters in accordance with California Elections Code section 9222 ("Option Two"). SACRD respectfully requests that Council vote against Option One and do not approve a second reading of Ordinance Nos. NS-2979 and NS-2980 because the final environmental impact report ("FEIR") for the Project remains woefully inadequate. If Council must take action on the Project, SACRD requests that it discuss and direct staff to prepare an initiative subject to a vote, as outlined in Option Two. 4516.101 18600269.1 Las Vegas I Newport Beach I Walnut Creek newmeverdillion.com Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 2 RELEVANT PROJECT HISTORY. Agenda Item No. 60A considers two routes for the Project's proposed entitlements. (See Agenda Item No. 60A; with Staff Rept., at p. 60A-1 [recommending action in the alternative].) The Project, a 256-unit multifamily housing project, with shared parking for the Discovery Science Center, is located at 2525 N. Main St., Santa Ana, CA 92705 (see City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.), and now includes an additional mitigation measure adopted after the public hearing was closed, as described below. Currently, the Project site contains an existing two-story, 81,172 square -foot office building and is surrounded by "Santiago Park" to the north, designated open space, and single family homes to the east and south, designated R-1 residential. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [Project location information and adjacent uses].) Project construction will require complete demolition of the existing two-story, 81,172 square -foot office building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [project location information]; see also, id. at p. 2-5 [discussing demolition of existing office building].) On November 19, 2019, the Project approvals came before Council for review as Agenda Item No. 75D. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed entitlements. After receiving public comment, Mayor Pulido closed the public hearing and brought Agenda Item No. 75D to Council for consideration. (City Council Meeting Video, Nov. 19, 2019, Hon. Mayor Pulido, at 5:03:25-5:03:30 ['close the public hearing and bring it to Council for consideration"].)' After the public hearing was formally closed on Agenda Item No. 75D, various councilmembers, for the first time, proposed various substantive amendments to the Development Agreement, DA-2018-01. (City Council Meeting Video, Nov. 19, 2019, Councilmember Solorio, at 5:46:42 ["Finally, I do have something that I would like my colleagues to consider to add into the development agreement [.... ]"; id., Councilmember Solorio, at 5:48:20 ["City Attorney what might we need to do to add that in to the development agreement just as part of the motion uh spell that out..."]; Councilmember Iglesias, also proposed terrace revisions that were withdrawn.) Ultimately, Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-107, which, for the first time and after the public hearing was closed, included additional "mitigation measures" in the form of a term added to DA-2018-01 requiring the Applicant to pay up to $150,000 for fencing on certain freeway underpasses lining Santiago Creek. (Councilmembers and staff, discussion of substantive motion begins at 5:51:54.) On November 20, 2019, the City filed a notice of determination ("NOD") for the Project's FEIR, which reflected these approvals with the amendment to DA-2018-01, as 1 Santa Ana City Council Meeting, Nov. 19, 2019, including the video, draft minutes, agenda, and related staff reports, are available at, https://santaana.granicus.com/MediaPlaver.phr)?view id=2&clip id=2542 (last visited Jan. 20, 2020, at 2:13 p.m. PST) (copy on file). 4516.1011 a600269.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 3 discussed above. (See Pet'n ¶25; 7:3-11; ¶35; 8:24-27 & Ex. C [copy of filed NOD].) This NOD triggered a thirty -day deadline to file suit. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21152, subds. (a), (c), 21167, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15075(e).) Accordingly, SACRD was forced to file a petition challenging Council's determination on December 19, 2019. (See generally Pet'n ¶¶1-58; ¶¶1-8; 1:-13:12 & Exs. A—E.) 2. THE FEIR'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BASELINE STILL DOES NOT REFLECT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NEW OFFSET INTERSECTIONS, CURB CUTS, AND THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. As discussed in detail with respect to the proposed entitlements that existed while the public hearing was open, an environmental impact report or "EIR" is at the heart of CEQA. (See Guidelines, § 15124.) A proper EIR provides the public and governmental decision -makers with detailed information regarding a project's likely environmental effects, describes ways of mitigating such effects, and considers potential alternatives in lieu of mitigation. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1, 21061, 21100.) An accurate project description "is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (County of Inyo v. City of L.A. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193, 199 (hereafter County of Inyo).) When a proposed project is accompanied by an inaccurate or incomplete description, it undermines CEQA by drawing "a red herring across the path of public input." (Id. at pp. 193, 199.) Because CEQA defines "project" as "the whole of an action," (Guidelines, § 15378; see Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.AppAth 1277, 1297; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.AppAth 1209, 1220 (hereafter Banning Ranch)), an EIR must also describe an entire proposed project —not a piecemealed version. (East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293; Banning Ranch, 211 Cal.AppAth at p. 1222; Communities for a Better Envt. v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 98.) To be complete, a project description must include future expansion or later phases of a project that will foreseeably result from project approval. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 (hereafter Laurel Heights); Guidelines, § 15126 [an EIR's impact analysis must consider all phases of project].) Additionally, an EIR's project description must be internally consistent; if not, it cannot provide a vehicle for informed public participation in the decision -making process. (County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 197 [shifting EIR description from groundwater pumping to replacing the entire aqueduct system].) An EIR is likewise of little value if it evaluates potential impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures relative to a false or shifting starting point. The CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this by defining baseline conditions as reflecting the existing conditions, applicable plan designations, and zoning for the Project area at the time of 4516.101 18600269.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 4 environmental review unless meaningfully distinguished by the lead agency. (Guidelines, § 15125(a).) Here, the Project proposes a large-scale planned residential development that is inconsistent with the General Plan's policies and goals. (See Pet'n & Exs. A, B [public comments discussing General Plan inconsistencies and inadequacies in the FEIR in great detail].) Under the terms of the existing entitlements and Project description described in the FEIR, while public hearing was still open, the Project is capable of a much higher maximum density at full buildout and includes substantial, significant new mitigation measures not properly subject to meaningful public review. For example, the Project's description and baseline conditions do not sufficiently address or incorporate the following anticipated or reasonably foreseeable impacts, among others: 1. Impacts from the new offset intersection configurations and proposed curb cuts, which will add significant backup traffic to existing traffic and which may block existing intersections; 2. Impacts from the new shared parking agreement with the Discovery Science Center: and 3. Cumulative impacts from the simultaneous addition of 1,900 residential units, 400 hotel rooms, 1,400,000 square feet of commercial space, and up to 750,000 square feet of office space as part of the nearby MainPlace Mall Transformation Project,2 located at 2800 N. Main St., which is approximately .5 miles from the subject Project. Additionally, Councilmember Solorio proposed unclear substantive amendments referred to as a "mitigation measure' being added to the Development Agreement, DA- 2018-01, for the first time after Mayor Pulido had already closed the public hearing on the proposed entitlements. (City Council Meeting Video, Nov. 19, 2019, Hon. Mayor Pulido, at 5:03:25-5:03:30 ["close the public hearing and bring it to Council for consideration"]; with City Council Meeting Video, Nov. 19, 2019, Councilmember Solorio, at 5:46:42 ["Finally, I do have something that I would like my colleagues to consider to add into the development agreement [.... ]'; id., Councilmember Solorio, at 5:48:20 ["City Attorney what might we need to do to add that in to the development agreement just as part of the motion uh spell that out..."]; Councilmember Iglesias, also proposed terrace revisions that were withdrawn.) As such, the Project description and baseline remain inaccurate and inconsistent —a problem that permeates every aspect of this stale FEIR's underlying environmental review. The addition of significant new mitigation measures further compounds this 2 Information regarding the MainPlace Mall Transformation Project is available at https://www.santa- ana org/ob/planning-division/maior-planning-proiects-and-documents/mainplace-mall-transformation- rp oiect (last accessed Jan. 21, 2020, at 2:06 p.m. PST). 4516.101 / 8600269.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 5 problem. This is particularly true when added after Council formally closed the public hearing on the Project. 3. COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE RECIRCULATED THE FEIR INSTEAD OF ADDING SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION AFTER FORMALLY CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. An EIR must be recirculated if significant new information is added. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; Guidelines, § 15088.5.) New information is "significant" where an EIR changes in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. (See Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.AppAth 91, 106-109 [finding the revisions to the air quality analysis and hydrology and water quality impact analysis "problematic"] (hereafter "Spring Valley") [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1129 (hereafter "Laurel Heights If')] ["the California Supreme Court held that new information is 'significant,' within the meaning of section 21092.1, only if as a result of the additional information 'the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.' (Accord, [Guidelines], § 15088.5, subd. (a).)"].) Ultimately, the Spring Valley Court found that certain revisions to the EIR constituted significant new information because their "breadth, complexity, and purpose" deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on an ostensibly feasible way to mitigate a substantial, adverse environmental effect. (Id. at pp. 108-109; see also Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 107 (hereafter "Save our Peninsula") ["We conclude that the EIR in this case did not comply with CEQA in its treatment of several critical water issues. Because of these inadequacies, the Board's action certifying the EIR and approving the project constituted an abuse of discretion."]; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 412, 421, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) [finding that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated for public comment].) Similarly, here, the FEIR incorporates substantial and significant new information and analyses that must undergo further public review. For example, the FEIR was not recirculated despite the following significant new additions or revisions to the Project: 1. Impacts from the new offset intersection configurations and proposed curb cuts, which will add significant backup traffic to existing traffic and which may block existing intersections; 2. Impacts from the new shared parking agreement with the Discovery Science Center: and 4516.101 18600269.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 6 3. Cumulative impacts from the simultaneous addition of 1,900 residential units, 400 hotel rooms, 1,400,000 square feet of commercial space, and up to 750,000 square feet of office space as part of the nearby MainPlace Mall Transformation Project,3 located at 2800 N. Main St., which is approximately .5 miles from the subject Project. Moreover, the FEIR for the first time included an Arborist Report as a designed mitigation measure. The Arborist Report proposed removal of certain existing, mature trees. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7; see also, id. at p. 2-38 [proposed statement of findings discussing certain Project Design Features "PDFs" that will be implemented like mitigation measures based on the Arborist Report].) Specifically, this new mitigation measure identified eight trees in an unhealthy condition that were recommended for removal. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) Significantly, this new mitigation measure also had the potential to affect potential habitat for a special - status wildlife species: the western mastiff bat. As City staff suggested: "the site could be used by one special -status wildlife species, the western mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms," some of which were first identified for removal in the Arborist Report. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of overriding considerations].) The City also acknowledged that this removal would require further review by the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee, but that it would "occur at a later date[.]" (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) Yet, CEQA contemplates a full and complete environmental review that occurs prior to action on the Project. CEQA does not contemplate review at some later date, after a purportedly final environmental document has already been certified and public hearing closed. If the latter were true, it would render CEQA meaningless. To add insult to injury, after the public hearing had already been formally closed (City Council Meeting Video, Nov. 19, 2019, Hon. Mayor Pulido, at 5:03:25-5:03:30 ["close the public hearing and bring it to Council for consideration"]), Council adopted a new ,.mitigation measure" on -the -fly. (Councilmembers and staff, discussion of substantive motion begins at 5:51:54.) The City did not supplement the FEIR based on this newly added mitigation measure. Instead, it filed the NOD certifying the stale FEIR the next day, on November 20, 2019. (See Pet'n ¶25; 7:3-11; 135; 8:24-27 & Ex. C [copy of filed NOD].) As a result, this triggered a thirty -day deadline for filing a lawsuit to challenge the FEIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21152, subds. (a), (c), 21167, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15075(e).) Accordingly, SACRD was forced to file its petition without this significant new information being subject to public review. (See generally Pet'n ¶¶1-58; ¶¶1-8; 1:-13:12 & Exs. A—E.) Thus, the City should have recirculated the 3 Information regarding the MainPlace Mall Transformation Project is available at https://www.santa- ana org/pb/planning-division/major-planning-projects-and-documents/mainplace-mall-transformation- rp oject (last accessed Jan. 21, 2020, at 2:06 p.m. PST). 4516.101 18600269.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council January 21, 2020 Page 7 FEIR to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the significant new information described above. (See Spring Valley, supra, 248 Cal.AppAth at pp. 108-109.) 4. IF COUNCIL MUST TAKE ACTION ON THE PROJECT, IT SHOULD SUBMIT THE PROJECT TO A PUBLIC VOTE UNDER OPTION TWO. CEQA compliance must occur before a public agency gives a project "approval" and "commits to a definite course of action in regard to a project." (Guidelines, § 15352(a).) Here, the City committed to a definite course of action when it filed the NOD, certifying the FEIR with significant new information not subject to meaningful public review. (See Pet'n Ex. C [copy of filed NOD].) The City's violation strikes at the very heart of CEQA and raises serious compliance issues under various open meeting laws. For the foregoing reasons, among others, SACRD respectfully requests that Council reject Option One and select Option Two. Allowing the initiative to go forward as part of the anticipated recall election will also minimize the costs and allow for proper public review. SACRD reserves the right to submit further public comment at and up to the tonight's hearing. SACRD also requests formal, written notice in advance of any future meetings related to the Project. Very truly yours, C4 Charles S. Krolikowski Cc: Mayor Miguel Pulido, mpulido(cDsanta-ana.org Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, ivilleoas(cDsanta-ana.ora Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza(osanta-ana.org Councilmember Jose Solorio, isolorio(a)santa-ana.ora Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(a)santa-ana.ora Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, ciQlesias(a-)santa-ana.org Councilmember Phil Bacerra, pbacerra(a)santa-ana.orct City Public Comments, ecomment(a)santa-ana.org: ecomments(d.santa-ana.org Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development CSK:slt 4516.101 / 8600269.1 Electronically Filed by Supenor Court of California, County of Orange, 12/19/2019 07:19:49 PM. DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Sarah Loose, Deputy Clark.30-2019-01119794-CU-WM-CXC RDA # 2 =A WV wZ �O �J w� Z❑ 0 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSKI, CBN 185177 Charles.Krolikowski@ndlf.com STEPHANIE L. TALAVERA, CBN 307252 Stephanie.Talavera@ndlf com GREG D. TROSS, CBN 293671 Greg.Tross@ndl£com 895 Dove Street, Fifth Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 854-7000; (949) 854-7099 (Fax) Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development, an unincorporated association of concerned residents SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER SANTA ANA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, an unincorporated association of concerned residents, Petitioner and Plaintiff, e&M CITY OF SANTA ANA, a public entity; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, an elected governing body; and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Respondents and Defendants. AC 2525 MAIN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; and DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER OF ORANGE COUNTY, a California nonprofit corporation, 4516.101/ 8560319.1 Real Parties in Interest. CASE NO.: 30-2019-01119794-CU-WM- VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085,1094.5; Pub. Resources Code, § 21168 et seq.) CEQA PETITION —ENTITLED TO PREFERENCE PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21167.1, SUBDIVISION (a) FILE DATE: December 19, 2019 TRIAL DATE SET: No Date Set Assigned: Judge Peter Wilson Dept: CX102 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS =w Ur WZ J LU Z G 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner/plaintiff, Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development, an unincorporated association of concerned residents ("Petitioner"), hereby petitions this Court for a peremptory writ of mandate/mandamus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5, to be directed to respondents/defendants, the City of Santa Ana ("City") and its City Council (collectively, "Respondents"), along with other causes of action alleged herein, including as to the applicant and real parry in interest AC 2525 Main, LLC ("Applicant"), and real party in interest Discovery Science Center of Orange County ("Discovery Science Center"). This petition/complaint alleges conduct in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000-21189.57) ("CEQA"). THE PARTIES Petitioner is an unincorporated association of concerned City residents. Diane Fradkin is a City resident and a member of Petitioner. Ms. Fradkin lives within one mile of the project at issue in this petition ("Magnolia at the Park" or the "Project"), which includes the demolition of an existing office building and development of a 256-unit multi -family residential development with associated parking, located at 2525 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, California. Ms. Fradkin will be directly affected by the Project's numerous significant and unmitigated environmental impacts and has standing to seek such relief as that requested herein. Petitioner has standing based on the standing of its members, including, without limitation, Ms. Fradkin. 2. Respondent/defendant City is a public entity located in the State of California. The City is required to comply with state, local, and federal law, rules, and regulations, including, without limitation, CEQA. 3. Respondent/defendant City Council of the City of Santa Ana ("City Council") is the elected governing body of the City and has final decision -making authority, including the resolution of appeals. Like the City, the City Council is required to comply with local, state, and federal law, including CEQA. 4. Petitioner is informed and believes that Applicant is a Delaware limited liability corporation that is the applicant for the Project. 4516.101 18560319.1 -2- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS LY A wV wZ 2>0 J W 'J ZO 1 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 5. Petitioner is informed and believes that Discovery Science Center is a California non-profit corporation and is a real parry of interest based on its relationship to the Project described below. 6. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the respondents/defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues them by such fictitious names. Petitioner will amend this petition/complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 7. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times mentioned herein, Respondents and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, were the agents, servants, and employees of each other and in doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, servants, and employees with the permission, consent, and knowledge of each other. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 8. CEQA requires that public agencies review potential environmental impacts of a proposal and consider ways to minimize or avoid environmental damage. Under CEQA, a "project" means the "whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378, subd. (a).) 9. "Approval" of a project under CEQA, means a decision by the public agency "which commits the agency to a definitive course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15352, subd. (a).) 10. The Project includes, among other things, the demolition of the existing office building and development of a 256-unit multi -family residential development and parking on the site located at 2525 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, California. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to create a second parcel to accommodate a 180-space surface level parking lot with proposed use by both the Applicant and the Discovery Science Center. 11. The Project is generally located at the northeast corner of N. Main Street and Edgewood Road, California, on an approximately 5.93 acre parcel at the address commonly 4516.101 / 8560319.1 - 3 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS =A wV wZ 10 J W J ZO H 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 referred to as 2525 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, California ("Property"). The Project site is located across from the Discovery Cube of Orange County, on the opposite side of Main Street. The Project site also abuts the Park Santiago residential neighborhood, which is adjacent to Santiago Park and Santiago Creek, designated open space area. 12. On information and belief, the Project includes a proposal to sell 1.4 acres of the Property to Discovery Science Center. Applicant and Discovery Science Center seek to enter into a mutual parking agreement to share a parking lot on a 1.4 acre portion of the parcel that is revocable at any time and by either party. This parking agreement is contingent upon the City first issuing a certificate of occupancy. This contingency is problematic in part because a ministerial certificate may only be issued well -after the requisite discretionary approval. 13. Upon information and belief, in or about late 2017, the City began preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"). As initially proposed by the Applicant, as distinct from the ultimate Project, the plans included a multi -family residential development of 496 units (the "Initial Plan"). Petitioner's members staunchly opposed, and one or more of them publicly commented on, the Initial Plan and its Draft EIR. The City failed to meaningfully respond. 14. In the Draft EIR, the Initial Plan included the following project description: 3.3 Project Site Description The project site consists of 5.93 acres of land that is developed with one vacant two-story office building. The office building is 81,172 square feet in size, was constructed in 1982 and used by the Wells Fargo bank until July 2017. The office building is located on the northwestern portion of the project site. The building is divided into east and west wings connected by a central two-story lobby area. The remainder of the project site consists of paved driveways, surface parking areas that include 442 parking spaces, and landscaping. A portion of the existing spaces (no more than 175 per the existing use agreement) are currently used by the Discovery Cube for overflow and employee parking. 3.6 Project Characteristics The proposed project would redevelop the 5.9-acre project site to provide 496 for -rent multi -family residential units. The residences would be provided within approximately 572,075 square feet of residential 4516.101 / 8560319.1 VERIFIED PETMON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS �w wr wZ 2O 3= W -� Z❑ 0 0 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 structures. The proposed development would be 5-stories and be topped with mezzanines reaching approximately 65 feet 8-inches in height. The development would tier down to 2-stories (slightly over 20-feet in height) on the eastern portion of the site. The residential units would be wrapped around a 358,630 square foot central parking/fitness center/club room structure with a roofline of approximately 90 feet from the ground surface, which is the highest point of the proposed project. The project would result in approximately 930,705 square feet of development and a density of 84 dwelling units per acre. 15. On November 15, 2018, the City released the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). The City received hundreds of comments to that Final EIR, incorporated by reference herein. The City failed to meaningfully respond to these comments. (See Final EIR, pp. 3-1 to 7.) 16. On or about February 19, 2019, upon recommendation of the Santa Ana Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") to deny the Initial Plan's application and certification of the Final EIR, the City Council directed the Applicant to consult with the community and revise its plans. (See City Council Minutes 2/19/2019.) 17. On information and belief, between February and June of 2019, Applicant modified the Initial Plan. Ultimately, the modified Initial Plan proposed a 347-unit multi -family residential development ("Second Plan"). Petitioner opposed this Second Plan, as it still did not address or mitigate for the significant impacts. In the City's Clarification to the Final EIR dated July 11, 2019 ("July Clarifications"), the City improperly rejected that the Final EIR needed to be recirculated. (See Clarification to Final EIR, July 11, 2019, p. 1.) 18. On or about August 12, 2019, the Planning Commission's vote on the proposed Second Plan resulted in an impasse (3 votes for, 3 votes against). (See Planning Commission Minutes, Aug. 12, 2019.) The Applicant appealed the Project to the City Council. (Ibid.) 19. On information and belief, the Second Plan was then revised to the current Project, an unrecognizable, rashly considered apartment complex that is a far cry from the Initial Plan considered and evaluated in the Final EIR. The Project, in its present iteration, purports to demolish the existing two-story, 81,172 square foot office building. In its stead, Applicant would construct a 256-unit multi -family housing project on a 4.4 acre parcel at 58 dwelling units per 4516.101 / 8560319.1 5- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS =A wV wZ 2M 3J WJ ZO rd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acre, with 511 parking spaces proposed. (City Council Agenda, Item 75E, Staff Rept., Part 1, Nov. 19, 2019.) The Project's intensity stands in harsh contrast to the nearby, far less intensive land uses, including the designated open space Santiago Park to the north and the single family residential homes in an R-I zone directly to the east and south. (See City Council Agenda, Nov. 19, 2019, Public Hearing Item 75E.) 20. Proposed Project approvals included adoption of (i) a resolution certifying the Final EIR; (ii) an ordinance approving a development agreement between the City and Applicant, No. 2018-01 ("Development Agreement"); (iii) a resolution approving a general plan amendment to amend the land use designation of the Property from "Professional and Administrative Office" to "District Center'; and (iv) an ordinance approving an amendment application to rezone the Property from "Professional" to "Special Development No. 93" (collectively, "Entitlements"). 21. On October 16, 2019, the City submitted the "Clarification to the 2525 N. Main Street (Magnolia at the Park) Multi -Family Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031, City of Santa Ana: DP No. 2017-34 ("October Clarifications"). 22. In the October Clarifications, the City determined, without factual support, that the Final EIR did not need to be recirculated despite the new and substantial modifications that only first appeared in the October Clarifications to the Second Plan still not the final Project. (October 2019 Clarifications, p. 2.) 23. On October 28, 2019, the Planning Commission again recommended that the City Council not certify the Final FIR and deny the proposed development and all related Entitlements. (Planning Commission Minutes, Oct. 28, 2019; see also Staff Rept., Part 1, Nov. 19, 2019.) 24. One or more of Petitioner's members, among others, objected orally and/or in writing at the City Council's November 19, 2019, public hearing regarding the Development Agreement, the Final EIR, and the related Entitlements, thus satisfying the requirements with respect to administrative exhaustion. True and correct copies of Petitioner's written objections are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively, and are incorporated by reference 4516.101 / 8560319.1 _ 6 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS (Xw Wr WZ �O 3J W J ZO 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 herein along with all other issues raised during the administrative process for the Project's approvals. 25. On November 19, 2019, despite opposition from the community, Petitioner's members, and the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-107 ("Resolution"). The Resolution certifies the Final EIR: [A]dopting findings of fact pursuant to [CEQA], 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 2018-10 for Specific Development No. 93. (See Notice of Determination, filed Nov. 20, 2019.) 26. The Resolution states that the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR, Clarifications to the Final EIR, as well as the Draft EIR (as modified by the Final EIR) ("EIR"). 27. The EIR does not, as discussed in detail in the comments submitted by Petitioner's members, among others, and incorporated by reference herein, effectively study, determine, or evaluate recent changes made to the Project. Instead, the EIR focuses on the Initial Plan and description —a completely different project than that finally contemplated. 28. The EIR also fails to sufficiently evaluate, determine, and mitigate for the Project's environmental impacts, as outlined in the comments incorporated by reference herein. The EIR, for the first time, incorporates substantial and significant new information and analyses that must be allowed to undergo further public review. 29. For example, the Project for the first time proposes an offset intersection configuration at Walkie Way and Main St., as well as a proposed new curb cut into the Project's parking lot on Main —extremely close to the Main St. and Edgewood intersection. 30. The Project's technical studies acknowledge that this change will add traffic to the preexisting backup traffic, but fail to evaluate or mitigate for the same in the EIR. 31. Additionally, the EIR for the first time appears to include an Arborist Report as a designed mitigation measure with respect to the existing mature trees that the Project would 4516.101 18560319.1 - 7 - VERIFIED PETMON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS UMw wr WZ 30 WJ Z0 El 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 remove. (See City Staff Rept, Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7; see also id. at p. 2-38 [proposed statement of findings discussing certain Project Design Features "PDFs" that will be implemented like mitigation measures based on the Arborist Report].) 32. This additional measure also purportedly identifies eight trees in an unhealthy condition recommended for removal. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) The City also acknowledges that this removal will require further review by the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee, but that it "will occur at a later date[.]" (See City Staff Rept, Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) But, CEQA contemplates a full and complete environmental review that occurs prior to discretionary action on the Project not at some later date after the environmental document has already been certified. 33. Moreover, as the statement of overriding considerations acknowledges, the Project site could be used by one -special -status wildlife species: the western mastiff bat. (See City Staff Rept, Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of overriding considerations].) The EIR acknowledges that "the site could be used by one special -status wildlife species, the western mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms[,]" many of which are being removed for the first time in the EIR due to a new mitigation measure and Arborist's Report designating certain existing trees and palms as unhealthy and qualified for removal. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of overriding considerations].) 34. Despite the above, among other issues raised at the public hearing, on November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving General Plan Amendment No 2018- 06, conducted a first reading of an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2018-01, and conducted a first reading of an ordinance approving Amendment Application No 2018-10 for Specific Development No. 93. 35. On November 20, 2019, the City filed a Notice of Determination for the Project and Petitioner timely gave notice and filed suit within thirty days of the same. A true and correct copy of the City's Notice of Determination is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein. 4516.101 18560319.1 - 8 - VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS �A wV WZ Z O 3 J W J ZC 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 36. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court under Code of Civil Procedure sections 394, 1085, 1094.5, and Public Resources Code section 21168 et seq. Many of Petitioner's members, including Ms. Fradkin, live in the City and will be directly affected by the Project's numerous impacts, including environmental impacts. 37. Petitioner's members, among others, submitted extensive oral and written comments at all stages of the public process. By virtue of said comments, which are incorporated by reference herein, Petitioner has exhausted all required administrative remedies. 38. Prior to filing this action, Petitioner provided all required notices, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits D and E. 39. As such, Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to filing this action and has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21167.5. 40. Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law for the offenses alleged in this petition and thus petitions this Court for relief as prayed for herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Peremptory Writ of Mandate/Mandamus—Against Respondents and DOES 1-50) 41. Petitioner incorporates all of the allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 40, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein. 42. Petitioner brings this cause of action pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21168 and 21168.5, the California Constitution, and the City's land use regulations and local ordinances. 43. Magnolia at the Park is considered a "project" as defined by the California Public Resources Code, as it is an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. 44. Respondents' consideration and approval of the Project constitutes "approval of a project" within the meaning of CEQA. 45. Approval of the EIR for Magnolia at the Park was discretionary, not ministerial. As such, the City was required to comply with CEQA with respect to the Project. 4516.101 / 8560319.1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS =w uIr wZ 70 3 J W .J Z❑ n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 46. By approving and certifying the FIR without providing a proper project description, without updating or revising related environmental analyses and mitigation measures, without completing a new initial study for the effects of the changes to the Project, without meaningfully responding to the public comments incorporated by reference herein, and without recirculating the FIR for public comment, Respondents violated CEQA, among other local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations. 47. For example, CEQA mandates recirculation of an EIR where significant new information is added after public notice is given, but before certification. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5.) Here, Respondents failed to recirculate the EIR in violation of CEQA. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5.) As a result, the FIR does not adequately evaluate environmental impacts that the Project will have on the surrounding community, including, without limitation, traffic, water quality, air quality, dust control, and other such issues addressed in the public comments incorporated by reference herein. 48. Furthermore, Respondents certified the EIR and granted the other Project approvals despite glaring inconsistencies with the City's General Plan and zoning regulations, in violation of CEQA, the California Government Code, and the Santa Ana City Charter, which incorporates the same either expressly or as a matter of statewide concern. 49. In this case, and as alleged above, the proposed modifications create new, different, or additional environmental impacts that are either unmitigated for in the EIR or entirely unaddressed. The differences between the Initial Plan and the Project give rise to significant new impacts and/or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Furthermore, the EIR does not evaluate certain environmental impacts that the Project will have on the surrounding community, including traffic, water quality, air quality, and dust control, and other such issues addressed in the public comment incorporated by reference herein. 50. Petitioner, therefore, requests that this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate/mandamus directing Respondents to vacate and/or set aside the approvals discussed herein, including the approvals of the FIR and related Entitlements. 4516.101 18560319.1 _10_ VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS (Xw wr wZ �O W J ZO 1 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 51. The public interest will suffer from Respondents' failure to comply with CEQA, the City's land use regulations, and the City's contracting away of its legislative powers. Petitioner, therefore, requests the recovery of its attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief —Against Respondents and DOES 50-100) 52. Petitioner incorporates all of the allegations contained within paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, as if set forth in full herein. 53. Actual and substantial controversies have arisen between Petitioner and Respondents. 54. Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated CEQA and the City's land use requirements. 55. Petitioner contends that the City has improperly contracted away its police powers, whereas Respondents contend that they have not done so. 56. Petitioner further contends that the Project may not proceed in light of these violations and potential environmental impacts, whereas Respondents contend that the Project may proceed as certified. 57. Based on the foregoing, without adequate remedy at law, Petitioner seeks declaratory relief as further requested in the prayer herein. REQUEST FOR HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 58. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4, Petitioner requests that this Court notice a case management conference and establish a briefing schedule for submission of points and authorities, and that a hearing on the petition be held within 30 days of filing of all briefing. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER prays for entry of judgment as follows: 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate/mandamus directing Respondents to vacate and/or set aside the approval of the modifications to the Initial Plan; 4516.101 / 8560319.1 -11- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS LMw Wr wZ � O W J Z❑ 1 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 2. For a peremptory writ of mandate/mandamus directing Respondents to vacate and/or set aside the EIR certification and related Entitlements discussed herein; 3. For declaratory judgment that Respondents violated CEQA, among other local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations; 4. For declaratory judgment that the approval of the FIR and Entitlements as described herein, is void ab initio; 5. For a case management conference to establish a briefing schedule and hearing date on this petition pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4; 6. For attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 7. For costs of suit; and, 8. For other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: December 19, 2019 NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP By: Charles S. Krolikowski Stephanie L. Talavera Greg D. Tross Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development, an unincorporated association of concerned residents 4516.101 / 8560319.1 _ 12 _ VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 00 14 81, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION 1, Diane Fradkin, verify that I am a member of petitioner/plaintiff Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development, an unincorporated association of concerned residents of Santa Ana. I am a resident of the City of Santa Ana. The facts alleged in the above petition are true to the best of my own knowledge except as to those matters stated on information and belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed December 19, 2019, in the City of Santa Ana, California. Diane Frad 4398.101 % 8554080.1 _ 13 _ VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS EXHIBIT A , uAOMN vlw L` N-I--K NEWMEYER DILLIDN 0s November 18, 2019 Charles S. Krolikowski Charles.Krolikowski@ndlf.com VIA HAND DELIVERY AT MEETING VIA E-MAIL CITYCOUNCIL@SANTA-ANA.ORG Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (the "Addington") Located at 2525 N. Main Street Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: This office represents the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association ("PSNA"), a coalition of interested property owners located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"), within the zone of impacts of the proposed residential development project commonly referred to as Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project or the Addington, located at 2525 N. Main Street Project"). This letter addresses AC 2525 Main LLC's ("Applicant") appeal of the City of Santa Ana Planning Commission's ("Planning Commission") recent denial of the Proposed Project at its meeting on October 28, 2019. PSNA is concerned regarding the Applicant's continued pursuit of approvals that do not conform to the policies and objectives of the City's General Plan and its efforts to do so by way of bribing adjacent property owners. In addition, the City's continued willingness to consider a high density multi -family residential development in an area where it would not mesh raises concerns as to why the City has not asked the Applicant to consider other viable development options for the site that would not have a detrimental effect on the community and that would conform with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. PSNA respectfully requests that the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ("City Council") affirm the Planning Commission's denial, in accordance with recommendation one in the Staff Report. PSNA submits that the Planning Commission correctly rejected the modified Project. Indeed, despite multiple revisions, the Project remains grossly inconsistent with the City of Santa Ana's General Plan and the character of the surrounding community. At the same time, the Project documents 4398.101/ 8504501.2 newmeverdillion co 01%ell Honorable Mayor PUlido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 2 reveal that its impacts, environmental or otherwise, still have not been properly considered by the elected body or its constituents. For these reasons, among others detailed more fully below, the Planning Commission's denial must be upheld, In addition to its written objection to any Project approval, this written comment also serves as PSNA's formal request for written notice in advance of any future meetings regarding the City's consideration of the Project, including, without limitation, the filing of any notice of determination related to the purportedly Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) ("FEIR"). I. THE PROJECT'S HISTORY, MULTIPLE MODIFICATIONS, AND THREE DENIALS. Jeremy Ogulnick, representing AC 2525 Main, LLC, is proposing to construct a 256-unit multi —family residential development (58 dwelling units per acre) on a 4.4-acre parcel of land at 2525 North Main Street. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to create a second parcel to accommodate a 180-space surface level parking lot that is proposed to be used by the Discovery Cube on an adjacent 1.4-acre parcel. Actions required to approve the Project include the certification and adoption of the FEIR for the development, which includes a Clarifications to the FEIR document, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and a statement of overriding considerations. Entitlements needed for the development include the approval of a development agreement between the City and applicant/owner, a general plan amendment to redesignate the land use designation of the property from Professional and Administrative Office ( PAO) to District Center ( DC), and an amendment application to rezone the property from Professional (P) to Specific Development No. 93 (SD- 93). The Project's history, compared to its most current iteration, is quite different from when the Planning Commission first held a public hearing to consider the Applicant's then - proposed 496-unit (84 per acre) development project on January 14, 2019. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28. 2019, 2-1-2-3 [discussing Project background and various modifications].) City staff recommended and presented a reduction in development from 496 units (84 Dwelling units per acre [DUA]) to 476 units, 81 DUA. The Project was denied by the Planning Commission. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1_2- 3.) The City Council directed the Applicant go back to the Planning Department and Planning Commission after consultation with the community. (City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-2) This cycle continued until the Applicant again informed City staff that it would make further modifications before again seeking to proceed before City Council. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1 thru 2-3.) The July 22, 2019. Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at the last minute due to no quorum. On August 12, 2019 the 4398.10118504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 3 Applicant's Project of 347 units resulted in an impasse by the Planning Commission. The Applicant chose to appeal the Project to the City Council. Following this meeting and due to extensive modifications to the Project, the City required that a modified project be presented to the Planning Commission once again. The latest modifications have culminated in the present, unrecognizable, and rashly considered Project —a far cry from the initial Project as considered and evaluated in the FEIR. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-3 thru 2-4 [modified Project in its current iteration].) The staff report identifies the modified Project will have a lot line adjustment and be built on 4.4 acres, with the remaining 1.4 acres to be used by a third party for surface parking. There is no mention of selling this 1.4 acres to a third party in the staff report. The 4.4 acre property would still require the complete demolition of an existing two-story, 81,172 square foot office building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [project location information]; see also, id. at 2-5 [discussing demolition of existing office building].) The intensity of the proposed use and requisite Project construction (demolition of an existing building) stands in harsh contrast to the surrounding, far less intensive land uses, including the designated open space "Santiago Park" to the north and the single family residential homes — R1 to the east and south. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [Project location information and adjacent uses].) On or about October 28, 2019, the modified Project came before the Planning Commission for the third time. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1 [listing date of hearing].) The Planning Commission denied, again for a third time, approval of the Project. (See Official Video of Planning Commission Regular Meeting.)' In its present iteration before the City Council, the Project purports to construct a 256- unit multifamily housing project at 58 dwelling units per acre, with 511 parking spaces Proposed, and an additional 180 surface parking spaces on the second adjacent lot. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.) However, the conditions of approval acknowledge that no joint parking agreement is in place and that there would not be one until the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-603.) Even upon issuance, it appears that any joint parking agreement would be revocable at any time and by either party. (ibid.) Again, entitlements requested include the following: • Adoption of an ordinance approving a development agreement between the Applicant and the City, identified as Development Agreement No. 2018-01; The meeting minutes are not yet avai Iable. accordingly, the video is available at htlL://samaann eranicus coo/NlcdinPhrcr phlfl� t5 id-2S,clin id ti�7 (last accessed Nov. 11, 2019. on lile). 4398.101 / 8504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 4 • Adoption of a resolution approving a general plan amendment to re -designate the property from Professional & Administrative Office ("PAO") to District Center ("DC"), identified as General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06; • Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment application to rezone the property from Professional ("P") to Specific Development No. 93 ("SD-93"), despite language in Division 26 that requires any specific development to maintain the values of the surrounding properties; and, • Adoption of a resolution certifying the FEIR, including adoption of environmental findings of fact under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), adoption of a purported "Clarification to the Final EIR" (City Staff Rept. at p. 2-2), a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Project will cause a substantial and significant deprivation of the property rights of adjacent residents. For example, in public comment provided to the City Council on or about September 3, 2019, a report detailed the potential home price devaluation in the Park Santiago neighborhood that would result from the development of the proposed Project. (See City Council, Sept. 3, 2019, (public comment re Park Santiago price devaluation resulting from Project].) The Project Applicant took a unique approach in response to this apparent situation. Specifically, it appears that the Applicant solicited adjacent property owners' support by offering a substantial monetary sum (of at least $35,000) in exchange for an agreement not to object to the Project. 2. ANY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE MODIFIED PROJECT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. As the City Council is aware, a city's general plan provides the constitution for all future development in the City. As a practical matter no city can function without it." (See Nelson v. Carlson (1993) 17 Cal.AppAth 732, 740, as modified on denial of reh g (Aug. 27, 1993),) Indeed, the Legislature has developed a comprehensive scheme covering a general plan's development, adoption, and amendment. (See Gov. Code, § 65100 et seq.) Every city is required to prepare and adopt one. (Gov. Code, §§ 65300, 65350.) A general plan must include a detailed discussion covering a city's land use, circulation, housing, conservation, noise and safety, along with "a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals." (Gov. Code, § 65302.) Once adopted, a city's zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan's objectives, policies, land uses and programs. (Gov. Code, § 65860, subd. (a)(ii); see also Lesher Comms., Inc. v. Cityof Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 535-536.) As such, the alteration or amendment of a general plan should not be taken lightly. The impact on the City's residents is significant and a perceived benefit such as revenue is 4398.101 1 8504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 5 insufficient to justify the negative impacts of increased traffic, increased density, incompatibility with neighboring communities, and environmental factors that would be caused by allowing the Applicant's proposed amendment to the City's General Plan. Moreover, the Applicant's efforts to purchase the silence of those opposed to its application should mandate denial as a matter of principal and equity. As noted above, the Planning Commission denied approval of the Project three times, the latest on October 28, 2019. (See Official Video of Planning Comm'n Regular Meeting.)2 In its present iteration before the City Council, the Project purports to construct a 256-unit multifamily housing project at 58 dwelling units per acre, with 511 parking spaces proposed and an additional 180 surface parking spaces on the second adjacent lot. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.) Also discussed above, the Project site is approximately 4.51 acres and construction thereon will require the complete demolition of an existing two-story, 81,172 square foot office building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1.) Again, the intensity of the proposed use stands in stark contrast to its surrounding surrounded uses, including an open space park to the north and single family residential homes to the east and south. (See ibid.) The Project site has a current land use designation of Professional and Administrative Office, with a zoning of Professional. The allowable uses of the property are limited to professional and administrative offices, banking or finance, travel agencies, medical and dental offices, museums or science centers, pharmacies, child care facilities, and freestanding regular -hours eateries. (See SAMC, §41-313.) Other allowable uses of the property, subject to a conditional use permit, include hospitals, convalescent facilities, health clubs, trade schools, ambulance response services, late -night eateries, adult day care facilities, banquet halls, clubs or lodges, and bail bonds. (SAMC, §41- 313.5.) The maximum allowable density for the adjacent R-1 district wherein the Park Santiago neighborhood is located is low density residential (LR-7) or seven (7) dwelling units per acre, with an actual density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre. (Ibid.) The City's current General Plan does not support the approval of the Project, even in its current form. Excerpts of the relevant land use and housing elements that remain inconsistent with the proposed Project approvals are referenced below: '-'rbe inceling minutes are not yet available, accordingly, the video is available at hllusa/sanlaana. +ranicus.comMlediaPlaver. ib iew id=2Scli i id=2327 (last accessed Nava 13_ 2019. on li le). 4398.101 / 8504501.2 Honorable Mayor PUlido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 6 INCONSISTENCIES WITH LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element is divided into five sections: Purpose & Scope, Community Factors, Policy Plan, Implementation Plan, and Appendix. Excerpts of the Land Use Element relevant to this objection are cited below: Community Factors • "A key role in shaping [the] future growth and redevelopment, the Land Use Element perpetuates positive land uses and promotes development which supports a high quality of life throughout the community." (Land Use Element, at p. 5, emphasis added,) • "Many of the City's land use characteristics are directly related to its historic position as one of Orange County's earliest pioneer settlements." (Ibid, emphasis added.) The City is the fifth largest city in Orange County, of which 58% of its 27.3 square miles is devoted to residential development. (Id., at p. 6.) Policy Plan • Land Use Goal 3: "Preserve and improve the character and integrity of neighborhoods." (Land Use Element, at p. 9.) Land Use Goal 6: "Reduce residential overcrowding to promote public health and safety." (Ibid.) Land Use Policies • Policy 1.2: "Support high density residential development within the City's District Centers as a part of mixed use development." (Id., at p. 10.) • Policy 2.2: "Support new development which is harmonious in scale and character with existing development in the area." (Id., at p. 11.) • Policy 3.1: "Support development which provides a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity," (Id., at p. 12.) • Policy 3.5: "Encourage new development and/or additions to existing development that are compatible in scale, and consistent with the architectural style and character of the neighborhood." (Ibid, emphasis added.) 4398.101 / 8504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 7 Policy 5.2: "Protect the community from incompatible land uses." (Id., at p. 13.) • Policy 5.4: "Support land uses which are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element." (ibid.) • Policy 5.5: "Encourage development which is compatible with, and supportive of surrounding land uses." (ibid.) INCONSISTENCIES WITH HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element introduces the City's housing needs and contains an analysis of resources to address those needs. (Housing Element, at p. 2.) Excerpts of the Housing Element relevant to this objection are cited below: COMMUTE PATTERNS • "[Tjhe majority of employed Santa Ana residents work outside of the City, approximately 20 percent work within the City." (Housing Element, at p. 13.) NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS • "Approximately 70 percent of all residential areas within the City are single-family residential neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods are established and well maintained, and several neighborhoods contain state and local historic resources." (ld., at p. 15.) "To protect and stabilize residential neighborhoods, support the City's economic base, and provide housing for the local workforce, Santa Ana is developing new residential neighborhoods in District Centers close to employment centers. These District Centers include the Metro East Mixed Use Overlay Zone, MacArthur Place, Downtown Santa Ana, City Place, and similar locations. [... j These residential neighborhoods are intensely urbanized, transit oriented, and explicitly designed to support a full array of housing needs in Santa Ana." (Ibid., emphasis added.) AVAILABLE LAND FOR HOUSING • "The City has identified areas for future development and mixed uses within its District Centers and transit corridors. [...j The sites are specifically chosen to create distinct and vibrant activity centers linked together with a variety of transportation options." (W., at p. 30.) 4398.101 18504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 8 POLICY FRAMEWORK • Policy HE-1.7: "Historic Preservation. Support preservation and enhancement of residential structures, properties, street designs, lot patterns, and other visible reminders of neighborhoods that are considered local historical or cultural resources." (Housing Element, at p. 43.) Similar inconsistencies should also cause the City concern. For example, the Project contemplates public access to the City's Santiago Park via the proposed development. This private -to -public access creates obvious problems with respect to maintenance costs and liability, but the Project as contemplated does not appear to address those issues. Moreover, the Project documents frequently reference the Project as a District Center, although its current iteration does not contemplate a mixed -use component, a requirement of any District Center development. For the foregoing reasons, among others, any approval of the Project would be inconsistent with and continue to violate the City's General Plan, 3. THE PROJECT APPROVAL MAY SUBJECT THE CITY TO SUBSTANTIAL LITIGATION. In addition to the problems with respect inconsistency with the General Plan as identified above, the City's actions described herein may give rise to a compensable regulatory taking. Specifically, the City's approval of the Project will intentionally interfere with the property rights of the surrounding property owners, depressing the value of the properties wherein some or all economic, uses of the will be impacted under the Penn Central and/or Kavanau tests. (See, e.g., Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 123; Kavanau V. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 CalAth 761, 711-777; see also Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1175.) Evidence of this depression in value has already been provided to the City Council. (See City Council, Sept. 3, 2019, [public comment re Park Santiago price devaluation resulting from Project].) In fact, on September 3, 2019, public comment provided in the formal record for the Project detailed the potential home price devaluation that would result. (Ibid.) Here, the Park Santiago neighborhood consists of approximately 1100 homes at an average value of $700,000 each. If the value of these homes is depressed by even as little as 5%, or approximately $35,000, that would result in potential losses of up to $38.5 million. (See ibid.) As such, the City may have significant exposure for inverse condemnation for injury to property interests caused by the City's failure to properly and thoroughly consider the impacts of this Project on surrounding properties, although such impacts are required to be considered under Division 26 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC"). (See Knick v. Township of 4398.101 18504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 9 Scott, Pennsylvania (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162; Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Cornin'n (1998) 17 CalAth 1006, 1029.) Further, it appears that the Applicant acknowledged these potential losses and has solicited surrounding property owners' support by offering at least $35,000 to certain homeowners in exchange for their support of the Project. The City Council cannot and should not condone this conduct, as it results in a further violation of Chapter 41, which requires that the value of surrounding properties be maintained prior to the approval of any specific development. (SAMC, § 41-593.1.) Failure to properly consider the impacts outlined above, among others, may subject the City to inverse condemnation liability as a result. 4. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT MAY IMPERMISSIBLY CONTRACT AWAY THE CITY'S DISCRETION. Land use regulations involve the exercise of the police power and the right to exercise the police power cannot be contracted away. (See Richeson v. Helal (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 268, 280-281, as modified (Dec. 21, 2007); Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 800; City of Glendale v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.AppAth 1768, 1778-1779; Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 823; Carty v. City of Ojai (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 329, 342-343.) If a contract cannot be read harmoniously with the police power, the contract would be unconstitutional as "contracting away" the City's sovereign police power. (Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz, supra, at pp. 823-824.) Although a development agreement itself operates as a legislative act and not necessarily a contract, it is subject to the principles expressed above. In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 CalAth 116, 130-132, the Court struck down a similar project by finding that the city violated CEQA because it had impermissibly committed itself to the project before completing an adequate CEQA review. When a public agency gives a project "approval" it "commits to a definite course of action in regard to a project." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 1532, subd. (a).) Because the proposed development agreement can be read to unconditionally commit to an approval without first attaining CEQA compliance and without proper preservation of the City's police powers, any related Project approval may be held invalid. 5. IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE PROJECT AS IS, IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE BY REFERENDUM. If the City Council approves the Project in its current state, the support of ten percent or more of the registered voters will be easily attainable for a referendum of the legislative entitlements. The City's own staff report supports this, as it repeatedly references the 4398.10118504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 10 number of opponents as early as the initial notice of proceeding, which received 163 comment letters. For example, on August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a work-study session to overview the Project. As part of this session, the Planning Commission received numerous comments, largely opposed, including thirty- two (32) verbal comments, with three (3) in support and twenty-nine (29) in opposition; and nine (9) written comments, with one (1) in support and eight (8) in opposition. The opponents to the Project have only increased over time. At the latest Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2019, sixty-two (62) speakers expressed opposition and only two (2) expressed support of the project. In addition, ninety-eight (98) individuals submitted written comments, with ninety-four (94) in opposition and only four (4) in support. Upon submittal of any such referendum, the City will have a mandatory duty to process and submit any such initiative and referendum measures. (Doran v. Cassidy (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 574 [city clerk]; Elec. Code, § 4008; Farley v. Healey (1967) 67 Cal.2d 325 [charter of the City and County of San Francisco]; Elec. Code, § 180; see also Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 564, fn. 2.). The cost to the City and its taxpayers to process such a referendum could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 6. THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE. The requirement for meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard extend to rezonings and other legislative acts. This is particularly true where property rights are affected. As noted above, the value of the impact to the neighboring homes may be substantial. Thus, adjacent properties are entitled to due process notice. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires "at a minimum ... that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing..." (Mullane v. Central Hanover Co, (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313.) The "root requirement' of due process is "that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." (Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 548-549; Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) 401 U.S. 371, 379.) Notice and an opportunity to be heard are prerequisites. (Anderson Nat. Bank v. Lockett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 240-247; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612-615; Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517; Kennedy v. City of Hayward (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 953.) State and local law therefore require valid notice of the hearing be given to nearby property owners. (Gov. Code, §§ 65901, 65905; FCZO, § 877(13)(5)(c).) For notice to be valid, "notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. [Citations.]" (Horn v. County of 4308.101 / 8504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 11 Ventura, supra., 24 Cal,3d at p. 617.) Several cases have held that to be adequate "the notice must be such as would according to common experience be reasonably adequate to the purpose." (See, e.g., Kennedy v. South Coast Regional Corn., supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 670-672; Litchfield v. County of Marin (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 806, 813; Scott v. City of fndian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 548-549; Drum v. Fresno County Dept. of Public Works (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 777, 782-783.) Consistently, the SAMC likewise acknowledges the requirement for valid notice to adjacent property owners. Section 41-645 governs the City Council's review of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Project. (See Code 1952, § 9250,14; Ord. No. NS-455, § 1, 6-20-60; Ord. No. NS-521, § 18, 6-19-61; Ord. No. NS-989, § 1, 11-17-69; Ord. No. NS-2847, § 43, 8-5-13; Ord. No. NS-2923, § 9, 9-16-17 adding § 41- 645 to SAMC).) Section 41-465, subdivision (g) limits the scope of the City Council's determinations on appeal as "within the limitations imposed by this chapter' with specific reference to Chapter 41, Zoning: The council, or in the case of a zoning administrator appeal, the planning commission, may, after public hearing, affirm, reverse, change, modify the original decision and may make any additional determination it shall consider appropriate within the limitations imposed by this chapter, Such decision shall be filed with the clerk of the council, and the city planning department; one (1) copy thereof shall be sent to the applicant. (SAMC, § 41-645, subd. (g).) Along those lines, all provisions of Chapter 41 must be interpreted and applied as, not the ceiling, but the basic "minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, and general welfare." (Code 1952, § 9281; Ord. No. NS-455, § 1, 6-20-60 adding § 41-766 to SAMC,) As part of those express "limitations imposed by" Chapter 41, the City Council's ability to approve plans for a development project like the Project here are contingent on its providing of adequate notice. (See SAMC, § 41-672, subd. (a).) Specifically, "whenever approval of plans for a development project will constitute a substantial or significant deprivation of property rights of other landowners[,]" as it will here. (See ibid.) Such an approval is invalid unless the director of planning and development services has set the matter for public hearing and provided valid notice at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing. (See ibid.) Valid notice must include "notice of the time and place of the hearing to all persons, including businesses, corporations, or other public or private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll, as owning real property within three hundred (300) feet of the property which is the subject of the application." (See ibid.) Moreover, the notice "shall be given by direct mailing to the owners at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing." (See ibid.) 4398,10118504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 12 Finally, notice regarding the City Council's potential action on a matter that required the recommendation from the Planning Commission cannot be given until afterthe Planning Commission has issued its recommendation. Failure to do so results in inadequate notice under established law. Here, only the staff report contained the recommendation from the Planning Commission —not the earlier, defective notice. As the courts have explained, notice without those recommendations is patently insufficient: As we will explain, section 65856 is silent on the timing of the notice and therefore creates an ambiguity as to when, in relation the planning commission's recommendation, the notice may be given. As we will further explain, a construction of section 65856's notice provision is inextricably bound with what must be included in that notice, a question that must be answered by looking to section 65094, which states that the contents of that notice must include a "general explanation of the matter to be considered." Consistent with the purpose behind the Planning and Zoning Law, we will interpret the phrase "general explanation of the matter to be considered" to include the planning commission's recommendation. Therefore, notice of a legislative body's hearing cannot be given until the planning commission has made a recommendation on the matter under consideration. (Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 888, as modified (Jan. 9, 2008).) Because inaccurate notice is akin to no notice at all, the Project cannot go forward on the defective notice issued without the requisite recommendations from the Planning Commission. (Drum v. Fresno County Dept. of Public Works, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 783.) 7. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN NOTICE For the foregoing reasons, among others, PSNA respectfully requests that the City Council deny the proposed Project, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Additionally, PSNA reserves its rights to submit further public comment at and up to the close of the record on the Project and requests formal, written notice in advance of any future meetings or notices of determination related to the Project. 4398.101 / 8504501.2 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2019 Page 13 Based on the foregoing, PNSA respectfully requests that the City act in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation and, for the third time, reject this faulty, rushed Project. Very truly yours, C4 Charles S. Krolikowski Cc: Mayor Miguel Pulido, mpulido cDsanta-ana orq Mayor Pro Tem Juan Villegas, jillegas santa-ana orq Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza( Santa-ana orq Councilmember Jose Solorio, JSolorio(@santa-ana orq Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(gDsanta-ana orq Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, c"glesias(@santa-ana.org City Public Comments, eComment(cDsanta-ana orq Park Santiago Neighborhood Association CSK:sIt 4308101100045012 EXHIBIT B EW ME E DILLION � November 19, 2019 VIA HAND DELIVERY VIA E-MAIL CITYCOUNCIL@SANTA-ANA.ORG Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 SAbwtr 11 O v4b tlliglm Ne•wmeyer & Dithon LLP 395 Dove Street Fifth Floor Nerepnri Rc ch• CA 92660 949 654 7000 Charles S. Krolikowski Chades.Krolikowski@ndlf.com Re: Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project (the "Addington") Located at 2525 N. Main Street Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) Honorable Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: On behalf of the Park Santiago Neighborhood Association ("PSNA"), a coalition of interested property located in the City of Santa Ana ("City"), and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), we submit this written comment for consideration and inclusion in the administrative record in advance of tonight's hearing on the proposed residential development project commonly referred to as Magnolia at the Park Multi -Family Residential Project or the Addington, located at 2525 N. Main Street ("Project"). This evening, the Santa Ana City Council ("City Council") must consider, after the Planning Commission's denial, the Project's proposed entitlements and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, No. 2018-01 (SCH No. 2018021031) ("FEIR"). PSNA respectfully requests that the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's denial in accordance with recommendation one, both on the grounds outlined in PSNA's November 18, 2019, letter and on the grounds detailed herein. PSNA submits that the Planning Commission correctly rejected the hastily modified Project, including its FEIR. Indeed, it is the City's responsibility to independently ensure that the FEIR meets CEQA's requirements. The City, as lead agency, must guarantee that the FEIR sufficiently identifies and mitigates for the Project's significant environmental impacts. There is no excuse for the City's failure to do so. As such, the City Council should reject the proposed entitlements and uphold the Planning Commission's decision, as they are inconsistent with the policies of the City's General Plan ("General Plan") and are not supported by a legally adequate FEIR. 3917.101 / 8509864.1 L, i -.b newmeyerdillion.com Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 2 The FEIR is insufficient in many ways. The FEIR is legally inadequate because the Project description incorporates significant new information without providing an opportunity for meaningful public review and comment. At the same time, the FEIR still fails to meaningfully address or respond to many of the 163 written comments. Thus, the City Council should take no action on the FEIR, prepare its own, independent EIR, and, at the very least, recirculate the FEIR to allow an opportunity for truly meaningful public comment. If the City certifies this FEIR as -is, it will remain subject to significant challenge. The City may base its decision not to certify the FOR on its failure to comply with standards governing the legal adequacy of EIRs generally. It may also determine that the FEIR is inadequate because revisions to the FEIR are required to respond to changes to the Project, changes in circumstances, or new information arising after the FEIR was completed. At the very least, the FEIR should be recirculated for proper public comment before it is certified. In addition to its written objection to any Project approval, this written comment also serves as PSNA's formal request for written notice in advance of any future meetings regarding the City's consideration of the Project, including, without limitation, the filing of any notice of determination related to the FEIR. THE PROJECT'$ HISTORY, MULTIPLE MODIFICATIONS, AND SOLICITATION OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THEIR SUPPORT. The Project's history, compared to its most current iteration, is quite different from when the Planning Commission first held a public hearing to consider the Applicant's then - proposed 496-unit (84 per acre) development project. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3 [discussing Project background and various modifications].) City staff recommended a reduction in development density and denial of the Project as it was then proposed. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3.) The City Council agreed and the Applicant modified the Project. (City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3.) This cycle continued until the Applicant again informed City staff that it would make further modifications before again seeking to proceed before City Council. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1-2-3.) The latest modifications have culminated in the present, unrecognizable and rashly considered Project —a far cry from the initial Project as considered and evaluated in the FEIR. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-3-2-4 [modified Project in its current iteration].) The modified Project remains on approximately 5.93 acres of property and would still require the complete demolition of an existing two-story, 81,172 square foot office building. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [project location information]; see also, id. at p. 2-5 [discussing demolition of existing office building].) The intensity of the proposed use and requisite Project construction (demolition of an 3917.101 / 6509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 3 existing building) stands in harsh contrast to the surrounding, far less intensive land uses, including the designated open space "Santiago Park" to the north and the single family residential homes — R1 to the east and south. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-4, Tbl. 1 [Project location information and adjacent uses].) On or about October 28, 2019, the modified Project came before the Planning Commission for review. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1 [listing date of hearing].) The Planning Commission denied approval of the Project. (See Official Video of Planning Comm'n Regular Meeting.)' In its present iteration before the City Council, the Project purports to construct a 256- unit multifamily housing project at 58 dwelling units per acre, with 180 surface parking spaces proposed. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-1, 2-4, Tbl. 1, 2-5, passim.) Entitlements requested include the following: • Adoption of an ordinance approving a development agreement between the Applicant and the City, identified as Development Agreement No. 2018-01; • Adoption of a resolution approving a general plan amendment to re -designate the property from Professional & Administrative Office ("PAO") to District Center ("DC"), identified as General Plan Amendment No. 2018-06; • Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment application to rezone the property from Professional ("P") to Specific Development No. 93 ("SD-93"), despite language in Division 26 that requires any specific development to maintain the values of the surrounding properties; and, • Adoption of a resolution certifying the FEIR, including adoption of environmental findings of fact under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), adoption of a purported "Clarification to the Final EIR" (City Staff Rept. at p. 2-2), a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, The Project will cause a substantial and significant deprivation of the property rights of adjacent residents and businesses. For example, in public comment provided to the City Council on or about September 3, 2019, a report detailed the potential home price devaluation in the Park Santiago neighborhood that would result from the development of the proposed Project. (See City Council, Sept. 3, 2019, [public comment re Park Santiago price devaluation resulting from Project].) The Project Applicant took a unique approach in response to this apparent situation. Specifically, it appears that the Applicant solicited surrounding property owners' support by offering a substantial The meeting minutes are not yet available, accordingly, the video is available at https://santaana.eranicus.comMlediaPlaver.php?view icl-2&clip id=2527 (last accessed Nov. 13,2019,oil fle), 3917.101 / 8509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 4 monetary sum (up to $35,000) in exchange for an agreement not to object to the Project. 2. THE FEIR'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION MAY BE INADEQUATE, RESULTING IN SIMILARLY FLAWED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES. An environmental impact report, commonly referred to as an "EIR," is at the heart of CEQA. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15124.) A proper EIR provides the public and governmental decision -makers with detailed information on a project's likely environmental effects, describes the ways of minimizing such effects, and considers potential alternatives to a project. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002.1, 21061, 21100,) An accurate project description "is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (County of Inyo v. City of L.A. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193,199 (hereafter County of Inyo).) When a proposed project is accompanied by an inaccurate or incomplete description, it undermines CEQA by drawing "a red herring across the path of public input." (Id. at pp. 193, 199.) A court will reject an EIR with an incomplete or inaccurate project description because, as the court stated in County of Inyo v. City of L.A.: Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project alternative") and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (Id. at p. 198.) Because CEQA defines "project" as "the whole of an action," (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15378; see Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.AppAth 1277, 1297; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.AppAth 1209, 1220 (hereafter Banning Ranch)), an EIR must also describe the entire proposed project —not a piecemeal version. (East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293; Banning Ranch, 211 Cal.AppAth at p. 1222; Communities for a Better Envt. v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 98.) A project description must include future expansion or later phases of a project that will foreseeably result from project approval. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 (hereafter Laurel Heights); 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126 [EIR's impact analysis must consider all phases of project].) Additionally, an EIR's project description must be internally consistent. If not, it cannot provide a vehicle for informed public participation in the decision -making process. (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 197 [shifting EIR description from groundwater pumping to replacing the entire aqueduct system].) 3917.101 18509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 5 Here, the Project proposes a large-scale planned residential development that violates the General Plan as discussed in detail in our letter regarding the same, dated November 18, 2019, Moreover, under the terms of the existing entitlements and the existing Project description in the FEIR, the Project is capable of a much higher maximum density than that being considered in the environmental review. As such, the Project description may be inaccurate because it fails to identify, and thus properly consider, changes to the existing land use designations and the maximum allowable density based on the proposed entitlements to the same. 3. THE FEIR MAY IMPROPERLY ASSUME A POST -DEVELOPMENT BASELINE. The idea of a "baseline" in the context of the FEIR is fundamental to its legitimacy. As a general matter, a baseline is important in part because it operates as the starting point by which all future comparisons are made. It follows that an EIR, like the FEIR here, which purports to report the environmental impacts of a proposed project, must start at the beginning. In other words, the baseline used as the yardstick by which relative change is measured must, itself, be a sound source for comparison. Experts explain the concept of a false baseline as the shifting "waistline" problem. For many of the same reasons, it would be difficult to determine weight loss if the starting scale measured you 30 pounds underweight. An EIR is likewise of little value if potential impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures are evaluated relative to a false or shifting starting point. CEQA acknowledges this by defining how a project must determine its baseline. According to Title 14 Section 15125(a), a baseline condition must reflect the existing conditions, applicable plan designations, and zoning for the Project area in effect. Yet, the FEIR's impact analyses and conclusions are often based on the assumed approval of the underlying entitlements it purports to evaluate. Similar issues exist throughout the FEIR, as well as just in the Project description. Separately, the Project fails to properly consider its impacts relative to the applicable general, regional, and specific plans. (14 Cal. Code Regs., §15125, subd. (d).) Ultimately, CEQA requires an evaluation of the Project in its existing environmental and regulatory setting —not in a vacuum. Accordingly, an EIR must discuss and evaluate inconsistencies between the proposed Project and its applicable general, specific, and regional plans. (Ibid. ["applicable" plans have been adopted and legally apply to a proposed project].) Here, existing land use designations allow for a much lower maximum density for the entire Project area. This lower density is consistent with the applicable general, regional, and specific plans, but entirely inconsistent with the high -density development proposed by this Project. Thus, because the FEIR evaluates the Project against a false or shifting baseline that is inconsistent with existing baseline conditions, the resulting analyses likewise fail, likely rendering the FEIR legally insufficient. 3917.101 / 8509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 6 4. ULTIMATELY, THE CITY MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INADEQUATE FEIR. CEQA compliance must occur before the City approves the Project. When a public agency gives a project "approval" it "commits to a definite course of action in regard to a project." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 1532, subd. (a).) In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 CalAth 116, 130-132, the Court struck down a project, finding that the city violated CEQA because it had impermissibly committed itself to the project before completing an adequate CEQA review. While an applicant's consultant may prepare an EIR, that does not relieve the City from its independent duty to review and exercise judgment over the document. Indeed, the City must independently review, evaluate, and exercise judgment over the document and the issues it raises and addresses. (Friends of La Vina v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1452; Pub. Res. Code, § 21082.1.) Ultimately, the City will be the one left holding the bag for certification of an inadequate EIR. (Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara (1998) 65 Cal.AppAth 713, 723-724.) Here, the adequacy of the FEIR's Project description is inextricably linked to the adequacy of its analyses of environmental effects. If the description, baseline, and consistency requirements are not met —the resulting environmental analyses will be similarly flawed. (See Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376 [EIR failed to describe or analyze project accurately].) For example, if an EIR bases its cumulative impact analyses on general plan projections, it must explain why these projections function as a realistic predictor of related impacts. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15130, subd. (b)(1)(B).) Moreover, a general plan's projections of future growth and related impacts are an inadequate basis for an EIR's cumulative impact analysis if the plan's projections do not cover a sufficiently wide area or exclude relevant data. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [no explanation of why analysis of cumulative air quality impacts was limited to Central Valley]; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421 [air quality analysis defective for failure to include contribution to pollution from offshore oil operations].) This is particularly true in situations like those at issue here, where the Project was originally envisioned at a higher density. Because the FEIR may rely on inaccurate estimates of projected development density, the analyses that flow from that estimate may be similarly flawed. In addition to the potential issues identified in this comment and the various additional comments submitted, the FEIR also may fail to identify, discuss, or mitigate potential significant impacts in the transportation and circulation section. For example, back-up of southbound traffic on N. Main Street between Edgewood Road and Walkie Way has the potential to significantly increase traffic and block intersections. The Project is proposing to reduce the distance between these intersections, while adding traffic to the back-up of traffic. In the technical studies for the project, information is calculated that 3917.101 ( 8509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 7 shows this back-up increasing into the future, but it was not evaluated or mitigated in the report text. This is important especially considering the overly wide intersection being created with the project at Walkie Way. Once the FOR is revised to include an accurate Project description, then additional substantive issues may be raised and addressed. PSNA reserves its right to submit supplemental information and evidence up to the final public hearing on the Project. (See, e.g., Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1119-1120 [applicant has right to present comments "prior to the close of the public hearing on the project."]; Coal. for Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1197 [same principle].) 5. THE FEIR SHOULD BE RECIRCULATED BECAUSE IT INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION. An EIR must be recirculated if significant new information is added, in which case, further public and agency review is required. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15088.5.) The Public Resources Code says the following with respect to mandatory circulation prior to certification: When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1.) New information is "significant" where the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. (See Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.AppAth 91, 106-109 [finding the revisions to the air quality analysis and hydrology and water quality impact analysis "problematic"] (hereafter "Spring Valley") [citing Laurel Heights Improvement Assn, v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1129 (hereafter "Laurel Heights Il")] ["the California Supreme Court] held that new information is 'significant,' within the meaning of section 21092.1, only if as a result of the additional information 'the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.' (Accord, [Guidelines], § 15088.5. subd. 3917.101 18509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 8 For example, the Spring Valley Court found revisions to the air quality impacts analysis, as well as the hydrology and water quality impact analyses "problematic," as the new analyses constituted significant new information requiring recirculation under Section 21902.1. (Spring Valley, supra, 248 Cal.AppAth at pp. 108-109.) As to the air quality impacts analysis, the revisions analyzed the project's consistency with several general plan air quality policies and implementation measures. The Court found as follows with respect to the new information on air quality: As there is insufficient evidence to support the City's finding the project is consistent with these two implementation measures (see pt. I, ante), the information discloses a substantial adverse environmental effect. (Id at p. 108.) Ultimately, the Court found that the revisions constituted significant new information requiring recirculation because their "breadth, complexity, and purpose" deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on an ostensibly feasible way to mitigate a substantial, adverse environmental effect. (Id. at pp. 108-109; see also Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.AppAth 99, 107 (hereafter "Save our Peninsula") ["We conclude that the EIR in this case did not comply with CEQA in its treatment of several critical water issues. Because of these inadequacies, the Board's action certifying the EIR and approving the project constituted an abuse of discretion."]; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 412, 421, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) [finding that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated for public comment].) Similarly here, the FEIR incorporates substantial and significant new information and analyses that must be allowed to undergo further public review. For example, the FEIR with respect to the existing mature trees that the Project proposes to removefor the first time appears to include an Arborist Report as a designed mitigation meas. (See City ure Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7; see also, id. at p. 2-38 [proposed statement of findings discussing certain Project Design Features "PDFs" that will be implemented like mitigation measures based on the Arborist Report],) This additional measure also purportedly identifies eight trees in an unhealthy condition recommended for removal. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) The City also acknowledges that this removal will require further review by the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee, but that it "will occur at a later date[.]" (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-7.) But, CEQA contemplates a full and complete environmental review that occurs prior to action on the Project —not at some later date after the environmental document has already been certified. If the latter were true, CEQA would be rendered meaningless. Moreover, as the statement of overriding considerations acknowledges, the site could be used by one -special -status wildlife species: the western mastiff bat. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of overriding considerations].) In fact, the 3917.101 / 8509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 9 species has a "the site could be used by one special -status wildlife species, the western mastiff bat, that has a low potential to roost in the large trees and palms[,]" many of which are being removed for the first time in the FEIR due to a new mitigation measure and Arborist's Report designating certain existing trees and palms as unhealthy and qualified for removal. (See City Staff Rept., Oct. 28, 2019, 2-57 [draft statement of overriding considerations].) Overall, the FEIR fails to adequately address significant concerns raised by state and federal agencies, independent scientists, conservation organizations, tribal representatives, and members of the public directly affected by this new mitigation measure. As a result of these and other related deficiencies, the FEIR may fail to fully inform the public and decision -makers of the Project's significant environmental impacts and to analyze and/or mitigate these impacts in accordance with CEQA. Failing to recirculate given these changes to the most significant and unavoidable impacts would result in an inability of the public or agencies to meaningfully comment on the Project's environmental impacts. The City should thus allow the FEIR to be recirculated and evaluated. 6. CONCLUSION. The adequacy of an EIR's project description is inextricably linked to the adequacy of its analyses of environmental effects. If the description, baseline, and consistency requirements are not met, the resulting environmental analyses will reflect the same mistakes. This is particularly true in situations like those at issue here, where the Project as originally envisioned is entirely different from the one presently before the City Council. Once a new EIR is prepared, then additional substantive issues may be raised and addressed. PSNA reserves its rights to submit further public comment at and up to the close of the record on the Project and requests formal, written notice in advance of any future meetings or notices of determination related to the Project. For the foregoing reasons, among others, PSNA respectfully requests that the City Council deny the proposed Project, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation below. 3917.101 18509864.1 Honorable Mayor Pulido Santa Ana City Council November 19, 2019 Page 10 Very truly yours, �I Chlees S. Krolikowski Cc: Mayor Miguel Pulido, Pulido aasanta-ana orq Mayor Pro Tem Juan Villegas, jvillegas(a)santa-ana orq Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza a santa-ana orq Councilmember Jose Solorio, JSolorio a santa-ana orq Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmientogsanta-ana orq Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, ciglesiasCacr7santa-ana orq Park Santiago Neighborhood Association CSK:slt 3917.101 18509864.1 EXHIBIT C ' State of California -Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 763,5a (Rev. 01/01118) Previously DFG 753.5a I r. LE.ADAGENCY EMAIL CITY OF SANTA ANA 2525 N. MAIN STREET MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 30-2019 1138 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If 2018021031 DATE 11/2012019 DOCUMENTNUM8Fr 2.01985001169 PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL PHONENUMBER AC 2525 MAIN LLC. 1 (714) 667-2740 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 2525 MAIN STREET SANTA ANA CA 92705 PROJECT APPLICANT (Checkappropdara box) [] Local Public Agency Banco[ District Other Special Dlstrict Slate Agency [ Private Entity CHECK APPLICA13LE PEES: M Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,271,00 $ 3,271,00 ❑ MltlgatedlNegative Declaration (MND)(ND) $2,354.75 $ 0.00 ❑ Ccadflod Regulatory Program document (CRP) $1,112A0 $ 0,00 - ❑ Exempt from too ❑ Notice of Exemption (attach) [3 CDFW Nc Effect Doterminalion (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (attach previously Issued cash receipt copy) ❑ Water Right Application or Petlllon Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ _ 0.00 0 County documontory handling roe $ 60.00 0 Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit ❑ Check ❑ Other TOTAL RECEIVED $ 3,321,D0 X�` -w• ` --- jDIANNA VELASQUEZ, DEPUTY CLERK ORDINAL- PROJECT APPLIOANT COPY•CDPM(A$B COPY -VAO AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DFW 753.3a lRoR 2o161215) MAYOR ' Miguel A. Pulldo MAYOR PRO TEM Juan vlllegas COUNCILMEMBERS Cecilia Iglesias David Panaloza vlCenta Sarmlor to Jose &olorlo FILED NOV 2 0 2019 ORAN LERK•R ORDERDEPARTMENI __._..DEPUTY 60 CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza e P,o. Box 19aa Santa Ana, California 92702 w9a IL"n"Or 0 n W v r y�� ?!1 -G NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Cl Ofiioe of planning and Research 1400 Tonth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Orange County Clerk Recorder P,O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702.0238 FROM: City of Santa Ana P.Q. Box 1988 20 Civic Center plaza Santa Ana, CA 92702 CITY MANAGER Kristine Ridge CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R, Carvalho CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Dalsy Gomez Contact: Selena Keleher Phone: (714)667.2740 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21162 or the Public Resources Code Project Title: 2526 N, Maln Street Multi -Family Residential Project State Clearinghouse Number: 2018021031 ER Number: 2017-34 Applicant (Name and Address): AC 2525 Main LLC MP05' a. Anrr✓ ST, Project Location: 2525 N. Main Street City: Santa Ana County: Orange t+I Project Description: The project will demolish the existing offlee building and develop A 256-unit multl-family residential development and parking on the site. The project Includes a let 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 be approximately 4.4 acres In size and the shared parking lot parcel will be approximately 1 A acres and contain 180 parkitlg spaces, The 206 multi -family units will be In structures between 2 and 4 stories in height, Residential parking will be In a surface parking lot and a parking structure that will have one level of underground parking and 5levels above ground parking, Approximately 26,947-squaro feet of common open space will be provided adjacent to the residential buildings. The residences vyill be at a density of 68 dwelling units per acre. The project Includes approximately 444,534 square feet of development (277,281 square feet of residential building and 107,263 square feet of parking structure and common open spec$ structures). The maximum floor area mile will be 1,43. The project w411 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 Parldwalkie Way. This will result in an off -set Intersection design, alterations to the northbound left -turn pocket for the Discovery Gabe, and modifications to the traffic flow on Main Street. Modifications will be made to the existing raised center medlan on Main Street (from Edgewood Road to Santiago Park/Walkle 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, 2010-01 (SOH No. 2018021031), adopting findings of fact pursuant to the California Envlronriontal Quality Act, adopting a Statement of Overdoing Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monttoring and Reporting Program; + Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Development Agreement No. 2018.0f, as amended; • Adopted a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No, 2018-06: and • Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2010.10 for Spooiflc Development No. 93, SANTAANA CITY COUNCIL Miguel A. Pulido Juan vlllea ur vidante aarmlenio Dodd Penal"a J040 $91odo vaoenl Mayor Mayor Pro Tom, Word 6 WordI Wad2 Wards y4ormi Coolie lQlaala IIfllUttloaaonla Ivlllaaasaaatnlaanc— I ....... _-. to m to 0 36 I� 08 o dv r�o .i Q o �m9 b 1Z 2626 N. Main Strout Multi -Family Residential Project Notice of Determination Page 2 of 2 r — I J is Nr uieot will nave a slgmfloant effect on the environment. ❑ The project will NOT have a signlflcant effect on the environment 2. ® An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the Independent Judgment of the City of Santa Ana. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Ana. ❑ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of IJJI CEQA and reflects the Independent Judgment of the City Santa i of Ana. 3, Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. ❑ Mitigation measures were NOT made a condition of the approval of the project. R. ® A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was adopted for this project.T ❑ A Mitlgadon Monitoring or Reporting Plan was NOT adopted for this project.` 5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. ❑ A Statement of Overriding Considerations was NOT adopted for this aroloot ti, ® Findings wen: made pursuant to the provislons of CEQA. L I I Findings were NOT made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This Is to certUY 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 Ana Planning Division, 20 Clvlo Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92702: Aate Titls County Clark: Please post for 30 days In accordance with Section 21162{c) of the Califomla Environmental Quality Act POSTED NOV 2 0 2019 ORANOR ' UNT OL •RECO ER DEPARTMENT U.1 DEPUTY FILED NOV 2 0 2019 ORANtla COUN/7^`C RR•REOOR RDEPARTMENT UY:W...�.._ k ` ,..,.. �....�_....._ DEPUTY Miguel A Ni do Juen vlllogan Woento 80rndonlu David Neale Joan 801060 Mayor Mayor Pro Tom, Ward 5 Wad Wordy Vacant CadIIB l9lenla3 tgPdlll QQWMJfl•nn__ aura Mfd)sllag al yea I nt g nl -2 o arq tl o� nolma(olsn 1 Isolorlo�sen a o Ward n Ward O g918+419@Ward 0 na. EXHIBIT D NEWMEYER DILLION 40 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: citycouncil()santa-ana.org Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street Fifth Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 854 7000 Charles S. Krolikowski Charles. Krolikowski@ndiLcom 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; 4398.101 18550922.1 Las Vegas I Newport Beach I Walnut Creek newmeverdillion.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 18550922.1 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 Qsanta-ana.orq Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, jvillegasCa�santa ana.org Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza(cDsanta-ana.org Councilmember Jose Solorio, iSolorio(a)santa-ana.org Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(a)santa-ana.org Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, ciglesias(a)santa-ana.org Clerk of Council Daisy Gomez, dgomezna.Santa-ana.org City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, Esq., scarvalhoRsanta-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 a State of California � Department of Fish and Wildlife 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFW 753,5a (Rev. 01/01118) Previously DFG 753.5a fi 30-2019 1138 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (if applicable) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE, TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY 2018021031 _... LEADAGENCY LEADAGENCY EMAIL DATE CITY OF SANTA ANA 11/20/2019 COUNTYISTATE AGENCY OF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER Orange 201985001169 PROJECT TITLE 2525 N. MAIN STREET MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROJECT APPLICANT NAME PROJECTAPPLICANT EMAIL PHONENUMISER AC 2525 MAIN LLC. (714)667-2740 PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 2525 MAIN STREET SANTA ANA CA 92706 PROJECT APPLICANT (Chac)r appropriate box) ❑ Local Puhllo Agency ❑ School District Other Special District ❑ slate Agency Q Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 3,271.00 M Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $3,271.00 $ ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaratlon (MNO)(ND) $2.354,70 $ _ 0.00 ❑ Certified Regulatory Program document (CRP) $1.112.00 $ 0.00 E1 Exempt from fee ❑ Notice of Exemplion (attach) 0 CDFW No Effect Determination (attach) ❑ Fee previously paid (altach previously Issued cash recolpt copy) ❑ Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) $850.00 $ - 0.00 Q County dooumonlaryhandling fee $ 50.00 0 Other $ PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash El Credit © Chook ❑ Other TOTALRECEIVED $ 3,321.p0 AGENCY { f ` "f� `,' � DIANNA VELASQUEZ, DEPUTY CLERK ORIGINAL- PROJECT APPLICANT CORY-CWFWW8 COPY. LFAO AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK DNJ 761.Go(Nov 2015UH) MAYOR ' Mlguel A. Pulldo MAYOR PRO'rEM Juan villages COUNCILMEMSERS Caollio Igloslas David Penaloza Moenta Sermiento Jose Solorio (FILED NOV 2 0 2019 BRAN 71IRKI, aR4EReEPARTMENI IIY tki V 0 CiTY OF 5ANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza • P, o. Sox 1988 Santa Ana, Callfomla 02702 A 9ant2•a� n ,e oraore NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CITY MANAGER Kristine Ridge CiTY ATTORNEY CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Delay Gomez TO: (] Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 FROM: City of Sant Santa a Ana ,Sacramento, CA 85814 A.O. Sox 20 CiVIC Cantor Plaza Orange County Clerk Recorder Santa Ana, CA 02702 P.O. Sax 236 Santa Ana, CA 927D2.0238 Contact: Selena Keleher Phone: (714) 667.2740 OWIV OO�tJ O g $o N CO7 "�ca a g 8 a � O IV O CD CI Subject: Filing of Notes of Determination in compliance with Section 21162 or the Public Resources Coda project Title: 2526 N, Main Street MuIO-Famlly Residential Project State clearinghouse Number: 2018021031 ER Number: 2017-34 Applicant (Name and Address): AC 2626 Main LLC V595 PJ . M+rr ✓ ( l+9 Project Location: 2626 N. Main Street r t9'rj' y��S City: Santa Ana County: Orange Project Description: The project will demolish the existing office building and develop a 256-unit multi -family residential development and parking on the site. The project Includes a lot line adjustrnant to croato two separate tots; one parcel for residential use and one parcel for shared parking with the Discovery Cube, The residential lot will be approximakaly 4.4 acres In size and the shared parking lot parcel will be approximately 1 A acres and cdnkaln 180 parkklg spaces, The 256 multi-famlly units will be In structures between 2 and 4 stories In height. Residential parking will be In a surface parking lot and a parking structure that will have one level of underground parking end 6levels above ground parking, Approximately 26,94Y-squaro fsat of common open apace will be provided adjacent to the residential buildings. The residences will be at a density of 68 dwelling units per acre. provided ed Project Includes heapproximatelysmill �ucture a4,534 nd commonuare Not opanlsp censtructures). 7harmaxemum floct of rakreaal bratio di will and 167,2The square rest of par the healthy trees along the east property fine and the trees along the southern property lines. The project Includes an elongated four-way intersection at Main Street and Santiago POWWalkle Way. This will result In an off -set intersection design, alterations to the northbound left -turn pocket for the Discovery Cuba, and modifications to the traffic flow on Main Street. Modifications will be made to the existing raised center medlan on Main Street (from Edgewood Road to Santiago ParkM/alkie Way) to provide turn pookotig of approximately 200 feat, 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: Ado ted a ion nal • adopting findingstof faCertifyingpursuant ito the California) Impact Envir nmental Qualityort No. l0-01 Act, adoptingNo. a Staiementlof 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 Amendmont No. 2018-06; and • Conducted first reading of an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2018-10 for Spooiflc Development No. 93, SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL NO Mlguel A. PuRdo Jaw "togas vid0ta aaaalonle David Penaloza Ma1'a1 VaWr Pm Tam, Ward 6 Werth Joao$01ado Wood (B R9fi Oa lviflrtradbrnaj.Aaa vn ,,,,...mi.-am _ Word2 Ward.1 ,n ...a„ walla vl9alsa 2525 N. Main Street Multi-Famlly Residential Project Notice of Determination Page 2 of 2 1 ® The project will have a significant effect on the environment. -- ❑ The project will NOT have a significant effect on the environment 2. ® An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the �— provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Clty of Santa Ana. A Negative LI Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent Judgment of the City of Santa Ana. ❑ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of 1 CEQA and reflects the Independent Judgment of the City of Santa Ana, I .3. ® _ Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. ❑ Mitigation measures were NOT made a condition of fhe approval of the project. y� 4. ® A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was adopted for this project. �❑ A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Plan was NOT adopted for this project. © A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adnptod for this protect. A —_ Statement of Overriding Considerations was NOT adopted for this project 6. 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 am] responses, the technical appendices to the draft EIR, and the record of project approval, are available et: City of Santa Ana 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 ORANGEC UNT CL •RECO ER DEPARTMENT 0Y.. DEPUTY FILED NOV 2 0 2019 ORANGE COUN 'NN•NECCI2dDEPARTMENT 9Yt ll/ DEPUTY Maval A. Pullao Jusn VllWpoa Mcapta 8armlanlo Davlo Pontoon Java 801060 Vacant codlla lAlawo Morn Meyer Pro Tem, Wards Word Word Wand Wem4 Wand Npllll lt�6ir_ 0011" jylll�apr�ganta.ane aro vsa I loam I.e 9og daamlm @ t Ja*(IWb&nla-eneam almesms(toaam8ann.oro �w Wr WZ 30 W J ZO 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) 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. ❑k 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. by transmitting via my electronic service address (Viola. Fennell@ndlf.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 12 8 9 10 11 12 =w 13 Wr wZ 14 O 15 W J 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(a)santa-ana.org Mayor Pro Tern Juan Villegas, ivillegas(a)santa-ana.orct Councilmember David Penaloza, dpenaloza(a)santa-ana.org Councilmember Jose Solorio, iSolorio(a.santa-ana.org Councilmember Vicente Sarmiento, vsarmiento(a)_santa-ana.org Councilmember Cecilia Iglesias, cialesias(c)santa-ana.org Clerk of Council Daisy Gomez doomez(a)santa-ana.org City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, Esq., scarvalho(o)santa-ana.oro 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- @54 0 i ) U m rc i_ In W 6 � I 1m ImIm w i N � W m i 2 aQ n4 m EOM .� I fla Sn NN Z a U< N Z va 1 NW m Po i Ts a ( S j e. Hi39WnN 31011.HV „lroNj (E)H aro i 5T 2l 9962 11066 9924 hTh6 I w 0 nu cc L" m m ut z a U ru x ¢ a- J V� ru W nn � ry � r un m Sent Postage $ Certified Mail Fee $ Return Receipt Fee $ (Endorsement Pnqutred) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement naeWred) _ Total Postapie & Fees 94114 7266 99114 2965 3352 22 CERTIFIED MAIL'"' ARTICI_F NUMBER m 0 a S � N (A rn v N n ? 9 —m O�O S O A N W <_ 91 0� N x `� W w@�n� umi Amm u m 0a�o> sn v Caw N m m I � O 3 v S to � e3 Lloyd Joseph Adams Discovery Science Center of Orange County 2500 N. Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 SLT 4398.101 Postmark Here SFF RFIfUl F61R INSTi C-50NS Rai Viola R. Fennell From: Right Fax Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:04 PM To: Viola R. Fennell Subject: Your fax has been successfully sent to City of Santa Ana at 7146476954. Your fax has been successfully sent to City of Santa Ana at 7146476954. Account:4398.101 12/17/2019 1:50:50 PM Transmission Record Sent to 917146476954 with remote ID "FF240-IP.Rx Result: (0/339;4/3) Line broken (no loop current) Page record: 1-1 Elapsed time: 00:59 on channel 11 12/17/2019 1:56:52 PM Transmission Record Sent to 917146476954 with remote ID "FF240-IP.Rx Result: (0/339;0/0) Success Page record: 1- 9 Elapsed time: 06:26 on channel 0 Viola R. Fennell From: adrian@dtrac.firstlegal.com on behalf of Adrian De La Torre <adrian@dtrac.firstlegal.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:54 PM To: Viola R. Fennell Subject: [EXTERNAL]:First Legal Update for Ctrl# [11493514] - 4398.101 Your order has been updated NOTE:This is an automated email. Please do not reply. UPDATEINFO: Delivery Date: 12/17/19 Time: 13:52 Signed: Elizabeth Cazales Control#:11493514 Job Date:12/17/19 Submitted By: Viola Fennell Service Type: REGULAR Reference:4398.101 LH��DI��7�I�iT1 Deliver To: CITY OF SANTA ANA & STA ANA CT Delivery Addr:20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA City: SANTA ANA State/Zip: CA 92701 Brief Inst: DELIVER LETTER EXHIBIT E NEWMEYER BILLION e0 December 19, 2019 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Office of the Attorney General 300 Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230 Re: Notice of Filing of CEQA Petition Newmeyer & Dillion LLP 895 Dove Street Fifth Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 854 7000 Charles S. Krolikowski Charles. Krolikowski@ndlf.com TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that under Public Resources Code section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure section 388 that on December 19, 2019, petitioner, Santa Ana Citizens for Responsible Development, an unincorporated association of concerned residents, filed a petition for writ of mandate against respondent, the City of Santa Ana, a public entity, and the City Council of the City of Santa Ana, an elected governing body in Orange County Superior Court. A true and correct copy of the verified petition is attached to this Notice as Exhibit 1. Very truly yours, 1 Charles S. Krolikowski 4516.101 / 8560186.1 Las Vegas I Newport Beach I Walnut Creek newmeverdillion.com �A W V wZ 29 3 J W J Z❑ 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 19, 2019, 1 served a copy of the within document(s): 1. DECEMBER 19, 2019 NOTICE OF FILING CEQA PETITION 2. VERIFIED PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE/MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY RELIEF 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. 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 19, 2019, at Newport Beach, California. r Viola R. Fennell Postage— ...._. .__. f l Certified Mail Fee $ rn � Lrlzwy��? Return Receipt Fee Ll� Yry1�. 3 (Entloraemont Req�iircy) p-• Y nJ � d°, ®� '�k Restricted Delivery Fes Postmark "� m o { (Endorsement gequLatl7 Here Er j zv ��. <s�%=a. :: _Ti Total I_.-P estage &flees ` Sent To: A a rid LT r' Office of the Attorney General �- 300 Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230 tr SI_T 4516.101 -