HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75AOrozco, Norma
From: William Beaubeaux <wbeaubeaux@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 9:16 AM
To: eComment
Subject: City Council Meeting Approval for Item 75A 3rd and Broadway Project
October 16, 2020
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Pulido
Santa Ana City Council
C/O eComment(cDsanta-ana.orq
Re: SUPPORT for 3Rd and Broadway Downtown Mixed -Use Development Opportunity
Item 75A City Council Meeting October 20, 2020
Dear Honorable Mayor Pulido and City Council:
I am writing to request your approval for the "3rd and Broadway" project. This project is such a beautiful addition to the
Downtown Core. The architect, Studio One Eleven, was sensitive to the character of the existing Historic Downtown.
They paid special attention to the historic details of the rhythm and proportions of the surrounding Historic
Buildings. They were able to weave in the old, while still being honest with the architecture of today. The end result is
a brilliant balance. Carefully placing the outdoor recreation decks and balconies and gently working with the building
setbacks, they controlled the massing to a very comfortable scale.
Reactivating Sycamore Street will link the north and south of the Downtown Area, creating a more pedestrian friendly
environment. This will also create a safer place to be. The proposed retail, residential and Hotel will be active places.
The North and South Downtown will no longer be blocked with a dangerously large and dark parking structure which
harbors a den of criminal behavior.
The Sycamore Plaza will be an active Plaza for the residents to enjoy street fairs, artist openings and farmers
markets. Downtown will once again be a gathering place for residents and visitors as well.
The revitalization of Santa Ana is moving in a progressive direction; let us keep that momentum going and I encourage
you to approve the" 3" and Broadway" Project.
Respectfully
William Beaubeaux, NCARB
Historic French Park
Orozco, Norma
From: Dave Elliott <delIiott@santaanachamber.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:47 AM
To: eComment, Dave Elliott
Subject: Support of 3rd and Broadway project
Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council
As president/CEO of your Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce I want to share my support for the 3rd and Broadway
project. This project I believe gives our city several great opportunities to expand our downtown presence as well as
the whole city community.
As a Chamber we are always looking at economic development impact. I think this project brings great positive impact
to our city. Needed housing for workforce, a downtown hotel, increased consumer base for downtown business, jobs,
increased tax revenue for the city and a new needed parking structure.
I am glad to support the Mike Harrah, Caribou project. Let's get this done.
Respectfully submitted
David L. Elliott
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Orozco, Norma
From: Plantamura (US), Michael <michael.plantamura@boeing.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:49 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Council Agenda Item 75A Comment
While I am very much in support of development and revitalization of downtown Santa Ana, this proposed project has
some concerns as proposed. Demolition of the existing parking structure will make it difficult for people to visit
downtown Santa Ana where parking right now is very difficult to find. So I have concerns with the initial impact to
downtown parking and want to know that a mitigation plan is in place to address this.
My second concern is with the project itself and involves the parking spaces being planned. As noted SD-84 requires a
total of 368 parking spaces for the residential portion. The project is allocating 196 parking spaces. As we know most
one bedroom apartments will have probably two people living there and two cars. Also it appears that the SAMC
required 25% (49 spaces) visitor parking spaces is being pushed to the public parking structure and sharing with the
commercial requirements. This will either impact the residents or the commercial properties depending upon the time
of day and day of the week. The parking plan does not indicate a number of handicap parking spaces for the residential
building, nor does it indicate any electric vehicle parking. Both of these should be included and addition to the 196 that
is being proposed. Last on parking, the plan has residential units on floors 2, 3 and 4 yet residential parking is on floors
5, 6, 7 and 8. This is a disconnect that should be addressed. Residents aren't going to drive up to the 81h floor and then
take the elevator down to the 2n1 floor. I don't understand why our Planning Department continues to approve fewer
and fewer parking spaces for projects when more and more cars are being owned by people and the negative impact to
on street parking becomes a reality. Please consider readdressing the parking situation with this project and add
additional public and private parking plans.
Last comment is on the crowding situation in Santa Ana particularly with mega -apartment complexes. What ever
happened to building condominiums? Why can't some (a majority) of these planned units be for sale condominiums,
including some for low income families? Why always apartments which yes benefits the Developers but is a detriment
to the residents and would be residents who want to make Santa Ana their permanent home? Thank you.
Michael Plantamura
Manager
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Service Engineering — Hydro -Mechanical Systems
(562) 797-3471 (desk )
(562) 243-2886 (cell ® )
YR Properties LLC
108 East 4t" Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 541-1170
(714) 345-7276
September 28, 2020
Ms. Sarah Bernal
Recording Secretary
e comments Osanta-ana. o rg
Attention: PLANNING
Re: Address: 201 West Third Street, Santa Ana, CA
Applicant: Mike Harrah, Caribou Industries
Development No. 84 (SD84) zoning district
Dear Planning Commission Members:
My name is Raul Yanez and I am the property owner of three properties situated in the
1001h block of East 4th Street, one of the properties is located adjacent to the property
referenced above.
Having successful businesses in the downtown area benefits the entire community. The
above project would provide residential as well as hotel accommodations thereby
increasing foot traffic within the downtown which directly benefits businesses in the area.
The addition of retail space in the area would also attract new visitors and clientele. As
such, I strongly support the 3rd and Broadway project.
Please feel free to call me if you need additional information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
RaulYanez
September 24, 2020
Santa Ana Planning Commission
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988, M31
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: 3rd & Broadway Mixed Use Development
Dear Members of the Santa Ana Planning Commission:
I am writing to you as a longtime (4dh generation) business and property owner in
downtown Santa Ana, my family relocating to the area in 1919. The purpose of my
letter is to support the proposed mixed use development at 3rd & Broadway. The
project would bring a high quality class "A" development that would heavily benefit
Downtown and the surrounding businesses. In addition, a hotel would be a huge
addition to the Downtown and not only create bed tax for the City but also help
expand Downtown's long term viability and future growth. Opening up Sycamore
Street from 3rd to 4th is also an integral step with Downtown's evolution and better
connecting the Artist Village to the Downtown core. And lastly, this project will not
displace anyone and will bring a large scale investment to the Downtown/City and
create a multitude of jobs, both short term and long term. 1 personally could not
think of a better use for this site at this time and for those reasons we ask for your
support of this project without delay.
Sincerely,
01
Ryan Chase
S&A Management
949-722-7400
ryanlylechaseOgmail.com
September 28, 2020
City of Santa Ana
Planning Commission
C/O eComment@santa-ana.org
Re: Support for 3Rd and Broadway Downtown Mixed -Use Development Opportunity
Planning Commission Meeting September 28, 2020
Item #2
Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council:
I am writing to request your approval forthe "3`d and Broadway" project. This project is such a beautiful
addition to the Downtown Core.
Reactivating Sycamore Street will link the north and south of the Downtown Area, creating a more
pedestrian friendly environment. This will also create a safer place to be.
Downtown will once again be a gathering place for residents and visitors as well.
The revitalization of Santa Ana is moving in a progressive direction; let us keep that momentum going
and I encourage you to approve the" 3Rd and Broadway" Project.
Re fully
ry .IrvinZew
Resident i
Orozco, Norma
From: Jeffrey Jensen <jj@chapteronetml.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:01 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Mayor & Council
Good Evening Mayor & Council,
My Name is Jeffrey Jensen (JJ) with Chapter One in Downtown Santa Ana. Chapter One and all of its
employees are in favor of the 3rd and Broadway Project. Downtown Santa Ana will benefit from this project
immensely. We need more living spaces in general and a hotel has been missing in Downtown for a long time.
There used to be more than 20 hotels in the Downtown area and currently there are ZERO. Motels and Wagon
Wheel on 4th Street don't count.
Streetcar, Hotels, more living spaces, new civic center buildings.... Santa Ana is moving in the right
direction!!!!!!
Looking forward to ground breaking ceremonies soon!!!
Thank you,
Jeffrey Jensen
Chapter One: the modern local
227 N. Broadway
Downtown Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 352-2225 MAIN
(714) 352-2242 FAX
www.chaoteronetml.com
Become a FAN on Facebookl
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER@
Chanteronetmt
Orozco, Norma
From: jason carrig <jcarrigl@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:54 PM
To: eComment
Subject: 3rd/Broadway Project
Attn: Santa Ana City Council:
am writing to request your approval for the "3rd and Broadway" project. This project is such a beautiful addition to the
Downtown Core. The architect, Studio One Eleven, was sensitive to the character of the existing Historic Downtown.
They paid special attention to the historic details of the rhythm and proportions of the surrounding Historic Buildings.
They were able to weave in the old, while being still being honest with the architecture of today. The end result is a
brilliant balance. Carefully placing the outdoor recreation decks and balconies and gently working with the building
setbacks, they controlled the massing to a very comfortable scale.
Reactivating Sycamore Street will link the north and south of the Downtown Area, creating a more pedestrian friendly
environment. This will also create a safer place to be. The proposed retail, residential and Hotel will be active place. The
North and South Downtown will no longer be blocked with a dangerously large and dark parking structure which harbors
a den of criminal behavior.
The Sycamore Plaza will be an active Plaza for the residents to enjoy street fairs, artist openings and Tamers and flea
markets. Downtown will once again be a gathering place for residents and visitors as well.
The revitalization of Santa Ana is moving in a progressive direction; let's keep that momentum going and I encourage
you to approve the" 3Rd and Broadway" Project.
Ref: 3rd & Broadway project
Sincerely,
Jason Carrig
Historic French Park
92701
Orozco, Norma
From: Marisella Brown <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:50 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn't provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I'm outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Marisella Brown
marisella_avon@yahoo.com
2613 W. Curie Ave Apt B
Santa Ana, California 92704
3
Orozco, Norma
From: Grace Bentley <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:02 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Grace Bentley
unexpected. noise@gmail.com
1138 s birch
Santa Ana, California 92701
Orozco, Norma
From: Evelyn Izelo <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:04 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn't provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I'm outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Evelyn Izelo
evelyn.izelol@gmaii.com
1627 W 5th st
Santa Ana , California 92703
s
Orozco, Norma
From: Edwin Arriaga <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:07 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Edwin Arriaga
edwinmike40@gmail.com
3126 W. 1st Street
Santa Ana, California 92703
2
Orozco, Norma
From: Val Espinoza <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:08 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn't provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I'm outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Val Espinoza
lakerskb02@gmaii.com
2035 n Broadway apt 9
Santa Ana , California 92706
Orozco, Norma
From: Ann Tran <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:09 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Ann Tran
annbtran@gmail.com
3409 S Main St, C
Santa Ana, California 92707
9
Orozco, Norma
From: Nancy Mejia <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:22 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Nancy Mejia
nnc.mejia@gmail.com
2030 E Santa Clara G-2
92705, California 92705
t
Orozco, Norma
From: Meyby Nicolas <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:45 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Meyby Nicolas
nmeyby@gmail.com
209 Lido Drive
Santa Ana, California 92703
Orozco, Norma
From: Clara Leopo <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:48 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in subsidies to this well-
connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the public good, not for the good of developers.
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana residents than this proposal.
Fight for a revenue -generating lease, a project with more affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until
the deal can be renegotiated in a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
Clara Leopo
claraleopo@gmail.com
2327 West Washington Ave
Santa Ana, California 92706
<https:Hu l584542.ct.sendgrid. net/ss/o/sKxQ9Tusut-gXiwfMa I EaQ/366/ki W 5o7YIRLmtAJ-cPn RRGQlho.gif>
Orozco, Norma
From: Melissa Palmerin <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:05 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in subsidies to this well-
connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the public good, not for the good of developers.
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana residents than this proposal.
Fight for a revenue -generating lease, a project with more affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until
the deal can be renegotiated in a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
Melissa Palmerin
palmerinmelissa@yahoo.com
1101 W Stevens Ave
Santa Ana, California 92707
<https:Hu 1584542.ct.sendgrid. net/ss/o/sKxQ9Tusut-gXiwfMa I EaQ/366/pl uZKLQLRrW b_dxGfpcegw/ho.gif>
Orozco, Norma
From: Peter Irwin <53172petersirwin@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:01 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in subsidies to this well-
connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the public good, not for the good of developers.
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana residents than this proposal.
Fight for a revenue -generating lease, a project with more affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until
the deal can be renegotiated in a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
Peterlrwin
53172petersirwin@att.net
2229 Oak St.
Santa Ana, California 92707
<https:Hu 1584542.ct.sendgrid. net/ss/o/sKxQ9Tusut-gXiwfMa I EaQI3661YPQVa ripRnG-1 DskvsgyBglho.gif>
Orozco, Norma
From: Nathaniel Greensides <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:10 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn't provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I'm outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
mynci90@gmaii.com
1601 N Flower St Apt 1
Santa Ana, California 92706
t
Orozco, Norma
From: Noraima Chirinos <nchirinos@latinohealthacess.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:09 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Noraima Chirinos
nchirinos@latinohealthacess.org
700 W. 3rd Street, apto A202
Santa Ana, California 92701
z
Orozco, Norma
From: Ernesta Herrera <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:08 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Ernesta Herrera
brito_ernesta@hotmail.com
2018 S Cedar St
Santa Ana, California 92707
3
Orozco, Norma
From: isabellelopez7028@gmail.com <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:07 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in
subsidies to this well-connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the
public good, not for the good of developers.
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana
residents than this proposal. Fight for a revenue -generating lease, a project with more
affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until the deal can be renegotiated in
a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
isabellelopez7028@gmail.com
702 S Raitt st. Apt 8
Santa Ana . California 92704
Orozco, Norma
From: Claudine DeGiacomo <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:04 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Claudine DeGiacomo
claudinedegiacomo@gmail.com
1022 W First St
Santa Ana, California 92703
Orozco, Norma
From: Jonathan Stone <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:03 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Jonathan Stone
jhstoneca@hotmail.com
2312 E Buffalo Ave
Santa Ana, California 92705
2
Orozco, Norma
From: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo@mycoffeemuse.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:02 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item No 2
I am writing to request your approval for the "3rd and Broadway" project. This project is such a beautiful
addition to the Downtown Core. The architect, Studio One Eleven, was sensitive to the character of the existing
Historic Downtown. They paid special attention to the historic details of the rhythm and proportions of the
surrounding Historic Buildings. They were able to weave in the old, while being still being honest with the
architecture of today. The end result is a brilliant balance. Carefully placing the outdoor recreation decks and
balconies and gently working with the building setbacks, they controlled the massing to a very comfortable
scale.
Reactivating Sycamore Street will link the north and south of the Downtown Area, creating a more pedestrian
friendly environment. This will also create a safer place to be. The proposed retail, residential and Hotel will be
active place. The North and South Downtown will no longer be blocked with a dangerously large and dark
parking structure which harbors a den of criminal behavior.
The Sycamore Plaza will be an active Plaza for the residents to enjoy street fairs, artist openings and famers and
flea markets. Downtown will once again be a gathering place for residents and visitors as well.
The revitalization of Santa Ana is moving in a progressive direction; let's keep that momentum going and I
encourage you to approve the" 3Rd and Broadway" Project.
Ricardo Martinez
Coffee Muse LLC
Orozco, Norma
From: Jay Trang <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:24 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn't make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Jay Trang
bulljayt03l1@gmaii.com
1001 E Santa Clara Ave
Santa Ana, California 92706
t
Orozco, Norma
From: Esther Van Deusen <ESTHERVANDEUSEN@YAHOO.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:23 PM
To: eComment, Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject: Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in
subsidies to this well-connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the
public good, not for the good of developers
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana
residents than this proposal. Fight for a revenue -generating lease, a project with more
affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until the deal can be renegotiated in
a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
Esther Van Deusen
ESTHERVANDEUSEN@YAHOO.COM
5125 W Roberts Dr
Santa Ana, California 92704
z
PALMIM
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
October 20, 2020
VIA E-MAIL: eCommentna,santa-ana.org
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of the City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Michael H. Leifer
Direct Dial: (949) 851-7294
E-mail: mleifer@palmierilawgroup.com
Re: Public Hearing Agenda Item 75A - Environmental Review No. 2019-85 for
Density Bonus Agreement Application No. 2020-01, Site Plan Review No.
2020-01, Site Plan Review No. 2020-02, and Disposition and Development
Agreement with Caribou Industries for the 3rd and Broadway Development
At 201 West 3rd Street
Objection/Comment Letter
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
File No.: -
This office represents Coalition Against Santa Ana Irresponsible Development which
includes citizens of and property owners in Santa Ana including the owners of the historic
Spurgeon Building (202-212 West 4d' Street, Santa Ana). The owners of the Spurgeon Building
are very concerned about the impact of the proposed 3`d & Broadway Mixed -Use Development
Project. This letter is submitted in opposition to the proposed actions considered by the City
Council relating to the proposed Project and the environmental review of same.
The City appears to be giving a "pass" to this Project on a number of issues. The City is
relying on a decade -old EIR relating to a zoning change and an inadequate Addendum that has
failed to analyze the environmental impacts from this massive Wilshire Blvd. -like development.
The City is also relying on outdated mitigation measures and proposing a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for the Addendum that does not include tangible mitigation measures.
Instead the mitigation measures proposed rely on future analysis and considerations and
aspirational measures. The end result is a massive Project that is "not ready for prime time."
Ironically, the Addendum refers to a decade -old EIR to suggest that it analyzed things
that it clearly did not. Neither the Addendum nor the EIR address the slightly older
redevelopment of the downtown by various owners and the Redevelopment Agency. Most
notably, the Addendum fails to analyze the potential significant environmental impacts on the
historic Spurgeon Building as redeveloped or the companion buildings as redeveloped that are
located just steps away from this massive proposed mixed -use Project.
Incredibly, the Addendum omits discussion of or reference to the historic Spurgeon
Building. The Addendum pretends that the Spurgeon building and site as redeveloped (along
2 Park Plaza, Suite 550, Irvine, CA 92614-2518
(949) 851-7388 1 www.paimierilawgroup.com
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 2
with companion sites fronting on 4 s Street are not attached to the Project site. None of the
documents discuss the fact that at/near the proposed Project site, there is a placard honoring
longtime Santa Ana downtown development director Roger Kooi.
Again incredibly, The Addendum fails to refer to the obvious fact that the Spurgeon
Building and its 4" Street companion buildings have been operationally tied to the Project
Site for decades. They are literally tied together by a bridge. They are tied by parking;
access; multiple levels and locations of entry points, emergency egress, service access;
utility operations, and air, light and view considerations, among others. As it does not refer
to the Spurgeon Building and its site, the Addendum does not analyze these shared
operational aspects with the Project site concerning the Spurgeon Building or any of its
companion buildings and their sites. Environmental analysis is patently invalid and
inadequate if it does not address the elephant, or in this situation, the several elephants in the
room.
The owners of the Spurgeon Building have received some documents and information in
response to a public records act request. The City's failure to produce but a few pages of
documents means that the City does not have documents in its possession or has not provided a
full and complete production prior to this City Council meeting.
The environmental documentation for the proposed massive mixed -use development
Project ignores site -specific impacts and then attempts to shield its inadequacy by the improper
strategy of suggesting that analysis is deferred until the future. Analysis deferred is analysis
denied. Moreover, the "Addendum" tries to support itself on a decade -old EIR that itself made
clear that it was not designed to analyze this Project. In the present consideration, the City, its
staff or both are playing a shell game with the public. Where is the analysis? "Look back to the
FIR, it must be there. If it isn't, we will analyze many issues in the future."
The analytical omissions, sad to say, are not surprising. For this neighborhood and the
vast majority of neighborhoods in Orange County, this Wilshire Boulevard -type supermassive
project bends or breaks all development standards. At the same time, its proponents attempt to
circumvent meaningful review, analysis and monitoring constraints. The developer -preferred
project avoids consideration of any alternatives to the supermassive project.
These are not minor analytical omissions. Rather, these are analytic deficiencies that
prevent the City from acting pursuant to law in a purported determination that the proposed
Project meets the required legal standards for approval under CEQA, the Government Code, and
the Municipal and Zoning Codes.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 3
The Supermassive Proiect seeks significant waivers and concessions based upon a
purported density bonus that is unsupported. The waivers and concessions cause a
significant detriment to the historic Spurgeon Building, its 41h Street companions and the
Downtown.
The Project seeks various concessions and incentives based on an assumption of a density
bonus from the proposed residential component. In discussing the proposed "business terms" of
the potential DDA between the City and the Developer, the Staff Report recognizes that the
Developer has an option to convert the hotel component of the proposed Project to residential.
(See Staff Report to City Council, p. 5.) Under that conversion scenario, the proposed Project
would not comply with the density bonus calculations and requirements pursuant to State
Density Bonus Law found in the Government Code. In fact, other than that passing reference to
the Developer's option to convert the proposed hotel component to residential in the Staff
Report, neither the 2010 EIR nor the Addendum analyze the project under the hotel -to -residential
conversion option.
The failure to analyze the various Project options makes this Project an analytical "shell
game." Is it a hotel? No. Yes. Maybe. Is it residential? Yes. No. Maybe. Is it both? No.
Yes. Maybe. What is this Project? Whatever the Developer wants it to be sometime in the
future. It is artfully and purposely unclear what "Project" will be moving forward and whether
such "Project" has actually been analyzed. The City has not and cannot with a straight face
claim that it is analyzing the possible Project scenarios.
The City has failed to analyze the requested incentives/concessions/waivers as it relates
to the historic properties in the area including the Spurgeon Building and site that is located
just steps from the proposed Project. The City Staff Report omits any consideration, analysis or
even mention.
As there has been no analysis of the impact on the historic properties operating as
redeveloped in the area, no mitigation of such impacts on the historic properties in the area,
including the Spurgeon Building, has been analyzed, considered, or imposed.
The City should not take any action until such an analysis and mitigation measures have
been considered.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 4
There are significant impacts to the adiacent redeveloped historic properties such as the
Spurgeon Building as a result of the proposed height, massing, floor area ratio and parking
waivers/concessions:
The Project proposes significant waivers/concessions to deviate from the development
standards which were analyzed and approved in the 2010 FIR. Indeed, in its analysis of the
impact of the Transit Zoning Code on historic sites, the 2010 FIR provided that the design and
development standards contained within the Transit Zoning Code "contain detailed requirements
in regards to building types, frontage types, massing, height, architecture, accessibility,
parking, street presence and landscaping. These standards are specifically designed to ensure
that new development within established neighborhoods, as well as existing commercial areas, is
sensitive to the existing built form of that area." (2010 EIR, Sec. 4.4, p. 4.4-17 [emphasis
added].) Specific to this area, the 2010 FIR states, "The DT Zone creates a cohesive and
consistent set of requirements to ensure that any new projects developed within the Zone adhere
to a unified set of standards, thereby ensuring that all new development within the Historic
Downtown is considered within the same context as opposed to having a patchwork of
standalone zones. Specifically, the DT Zone limits building heights based upon the existing
historic context of the buildings currently located in the Historic Downtown." (Id. at p. 4.4-
18 [emphasis added].)
Even with those "detailed requirements" and design/development standards, the 2010
FIR concluded the Transit Zoning Code would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of historical resources and that such effects were significant and unavoidable. (See
Id. at p. 4.4-22.)
Now, a decade later, with proposed development at the rear frontage of one of the most
historic street frontages in Santa Ana including the Spurgeon Building the City seeks to
dispose or ignore the very standards it imposed. Height ignored. Massing more is more.
Floor Area Ratio let's get the numerator to be as high as possible. The conduct goes even
further as it completely omits any analysis that such deviations would have on the redeveloped
historic sites like the Spurgeon Building.
The proposed Project proposes a height 150 percent taller than the height limit imposed a
decade ago. Essentially, no standards are applied if a building can be constructed half again
taller than the limit. The proposed Wilshire Blvd. -type Project absolutely dwarfs the historic
surroundings. The height limit was adopted and imposed for a reason because a 16-story
building within the historic downtown area of Santa Ana is not in keeping with the character of
the area. The height will have a negative impact on the historic and redeveloped Spurgeon
Building its clocktower and its companion properties Here is an obvious question, what
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 5
experience does Santa Ana have with fire fighting a 16-story residential/hotel building
surrounded by smaller historic structures? What analysis is in the documentation? None.
Similarly, there has been no analysis of the deviation from the maximum 85% massing
standard. No analysis has been conducted to support the claims of the added views from the
"recessing" of the "building mass at the fourth and fifth levels." In fact, the massing proposed at
the fourth and fifth levels is at or nearly at the maximum allowable massing of 85%. It is not
like the third story deviates the maximum but the fourth and fifth levels try to compensate for
that by have a massing less than the maximum. The deviation from the floor area ratio standards
contributes to the height and massing impacts of the proposed project.
As discussed elsewhere herein, there is no analysis of the impacts from construction of
this massive Wilshire Blvd. -type of development just steps away from a 100-plus year old
building. What steps will be undertaken to make sure that the demolition, earth movement and
construction required for this massive project development will not impact the historic Spurgeon
Building or the surrounding historic Downtown area?
The proposed Project also deviates from the parking standards and requirements. The
proposed Project eliminates an existing 400-plus space public parking structure that currently
serves the downtown Santa Ana properties and businesses. The proposed Project seeks to
demolish that existing 400-plus space parking structure and the attendant improvements such as
the bridge structures from the parking structure to the nearby buildings, including the Spurgeon
Building. The Staff Report asserts that the Project proposes to replace the existing 400-plus
space public parking with 220 public parking spots. The Staff Report fails to recognize that such
parking spots will be utilized by the retail/commercial oriented uses being proposed as part of the
mixed -use development Project. There is no analysis as to the current parking usage of the
existing 400-plus parking structure nor any analysis as to whether the proposed 220 parking
spots will be sufficient for use of the downtown Santa Ana properties and businesses that
currently utilize and rely upon the 400-plus spaces in the existing parking structure. There is no
analysis of the impact to the parking situation during construction. How long will it take for
construction of the development? How long between demolition of 400-plus spaces to having
public use of 220 spaces?
The City's wholesale failure to analyze the very real impacts to historic site such as the
Spurgeon Building requires a denial at this time. In fact, there will be significant impacts to the
Spurgeon Building from these deviations.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 6
The reliance on the 2010 FIR and the deficient Addendum is not sufficient.
The 2010 EIR was not a project specific FIR. Rather, the 2010 EIR analyzed the then -
proposed Transit Zoning Code. The 2010 EIR did not consider this project. hi fact, the only
development proposal included in the project description of the 2010 FIR was in a different area
of the City of Santa Ana. (See 2010 FIR, Figure 3-7.) In fact, as described in the 2010 EIR
project description, the Transit Zoning Code was initially drafted as part of a Specific Plan,
however, the City tabled the Specific Plan and instead proceeded with "the zoning component."
The 2010 EIR project description states, "The Transit Zoning Code embodies many of the
policies previously contained within the [specific plan], but is more limited in its scope of
implementation." (Id., at p. 3-13.)
The 2010 FIR did not include a site specific analysis of this proposed Project. Indeed,
the City recognized and acknowledged that the 2010 EIR "can be characterized as both a
program FIR and a project-EIR." The "project-EIR" component related to the development
proposal (Figure 3-7) for another area in the City: "since adequate level of details is available
for the development proposal, this EIR analyzes the project's specific potential impacts." (Id. at
p. 3-28.)
The City further recognized that further detailed analysis would be required for individual
projects: "Regardless of its title, the document is intended to act as an analytical superstructure
for subsequent, more detailed analyses associated with individual project applications
consistent with the proposed project." (Ibid. [emphasis added].) Even more direct, in the
2010 EK the City stated: "The City recognizes that the program -level analysis of the
remainder of the project does not include the level of detail necessary to qualify as a proiect
FIR, and anticipates that future projects will require more detailed environmental review at
the time they are proposed." (Ibid at p. 3-28.)
The proposed Project's reliance on the 2010 FIR and the cursory "analysis" provided in
the Addendum do not provide a "more detailed environmental review." Indeed, as discussed
above, many of the development standards that were considered in the 2010 EIR and adopted in
the Transit Zoning Code are being ignored without any consideration or analysis of the impact of
such deviations on the environment.
The Proiect will have a significant impact on Cultural Resources that has not been
adequately analyzed: The Project proposes a massive development just a few feet away from
one of the historic buildings in the City of Santa Ana —the Spurgeon Building. In order to make
way for the mixed -use development proposed, the Project proposes to remove the existing
parking structure including the bridge and appurtenances that connect to buildings that front on
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 7
West Fourth Street including the Spurgeon Building. The bridges and related stairway structures
span the alley between the existing parking structure and the Spurgeon Building (and other
buildings fronting on West Fourth Street). The bridges and related stairway structures are
attached to the historic Spurgeon Building. Yet no analysis has been conducted concerning the
environmental impacts to the Spurgeon Building caused by the removal of those structures.
The bridge and related stairway structures also include emergency and incidental ingress,
egress from the Spurgeon Building (and other buildings). There are also utility structures that
connect to the Spurgeon Building that are part of the existing bridge and related stairway
structure. No analysis has been conducted concerning the impacts to the historic Spurgeon
Building caused by the removal of those structures.
As discussed elsewhere herein, there has also been no consideration of the impacts on
surrounding land uses, including the historic Spurgeon Building, from a fire protection or
emergency services standpoint.
Likewise, as discussed above, the proposed Project seeks to deviate significantly from the
standards considered in the 2010 FIR. The height, mass, and floor area ratios will all cause
adverse impacts to the Spurgeon Building. The adverse impacts from those deviations have not
been analyzed and should be considered in an environmental review.
The owners of the Spurgeon Building are concerned that the development activity to
demolish the existing parking structure including the bridge and stairway system that serves and
is connected to the Spurgeon Building, as well as the development and construction activities
that will be required to construct a 16-story building within a few feet of the historic Spurgeon
Building that was constructed more than 100-years ago, will cause significant and irreversible
impacts to the historic landmark in the City of Santa Ana.
Further analysis is needed and required.
The Project will have a significant impact on Land Use that has not been adequately
analyzed: The proposed Project will deviate from the existing land use plan, policy or
regulations. As discussed above, the Project requires a number of questionable
waivers/incentives/concessions from the design standards that were studied in the 2010 EIR.
The deviations in height, massing, floor area ratio, etc. cause significant impacts that were not
analyzed in the 2010 FIR and have not been considered or analyzed in the Addendum. As a
result of the lack of analysis, the Addendum proposes no mitigation measures.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 8
There has been no analysis of the viability of this massive development particularly in a
post-COVID environment. Again, while there is some mention of a conversion of the hotel to
residential in the staff report, the Addendum does not address such a conversion.
There has also been no consideration of the impacts on surrounding land uses from a fire
protection or emergency services standpoint. As discussed herein, the Project will remove the
existing ingress/egress from the Spurgeon Building. There has also been no analysis of the
ability of emergency vehicles to utilize the alley North of the proposed Project to access the
buildings that front on West Fourth Street. There has been no analysis of the fire
protection/emergency services to serve this massive development. What is the evacuation plan?
What will occur if there is an emergency that requires joint and simultaneous evacuation of this
massive development as well as the properties fronting on West 4s' Street?
Likewise, there has been no analysis of whether the developer intends to utilize the roof
of the 16-story building as a helipad. There is no discussion at all. Does the developer want it,
maybe want it, not want it? Will it never happen? The assumption must be that there is the
flexibility to add that feature in the future. Yet, there is no analysis of the impacts on
surrounding buildings and users.
The Proiect will have a significant impact on Geology/Soils that has not been adequately
analyzed: The Addendum does not adequately consider potential geological impacts from the
proposed Project construction. The Project proposes subterranean parking and a large 16-story
mixed use building. The Project will be large, heavy and require substantial excavation. Yet, the
Addendum does not provide any updated geology studies or geotechnical reports. The City
should not be recommending approval of a large scale residential/mixed use project without site -
specific information about geotechnical risks and potential mitigation techniques. There is no
support for the Addendum's claim that there will not be geologic or soil impacts.
The Proiect will have a significant impact on Transportation that has not been adequately
analyzed: There has not been an adequate analysis of the transportation, traffic and parking
impacts or appropriate mitigation. As discussed above, the Project requires the demolition of the
existing 400-plus public parking structure that serves the existing downtown Santa Ana buildings
and businesses. There has been no analysis of whether the 220 public parking spaces to be
replaced by the Project would be sufficient for the existing demand plus the demand associated
with the mixed -use development. Further, the 16-story mixed use building will have two -access
points off of the small alley to the North of the proposed building. There has been little to no
analysis of the traffic impacts of having all vehicular access to the massive 16-story mixed use
building from the small alley or the impacts to the neighboring properties that front on West
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 9
Fourth Street and the impacts to access for emergency vehicles as well as emergency egress from
the buildings that front on West Fourth Street.
The Project will have a significant impact on Aesthetics that has not been adequately
analyzed: As discussed above, the proposed Project seeks numerous waivers/concessions to
deviate from standards which will cause significant aesthetic impacts that have not been
adequately studied or mitigated. The shadow analysis is just one example of the significant
impacts caused by the deviations from the height, massing and floor area ratio standards. The
historic Spurgeon Building and other existing buildings and land uses will be dwarfed by the
proposed project and live within its shadow. Those impacts have not been analyzed or mitigated.
There has not been an adequate analysis of Greenhouse Gas impacts: Neither the Project
nor the underlying documents comply with the provisions of AB 32, Executive Order No. S-03-
05 and California Air Resources Board regulations ("GHG Mandates") as they have been
interpreted by both the California Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal. See Center
for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 CalAtb 204;
Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4a' 1152.) It is mandatory for local
jurisdictions such as the City of Santa Ana to take affirmative steps to reduce Green House Gases
("GHGs"0 with feasible mitigation and valid climate action plans which implement statewide
policy of minimizing GHG as described in AB32. This Project, the 2010 EIR and the Addendum
fail to do that.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is deficient.
As discussed above, because of the environmental documents' deficient analysis of the
impacts to the environment from the proposed Project, appropriate mitigation measures have not
been proposed. Further, even the mitigation measure that are being proposed are largely
ineffective and without any real oversight. As one example only, the proposed "mitigation" for
the impact to cultural and historic resources simply further defers analysis by requiring a
technical report at some later date. The proposed mitigation does not provide any requirement
for future public notice and review.
The "mitigation" to conduct future analysis is not sufficient. Critical public review
particularly to preserve historic resources is key. The time to analyze and provide the public
with information is now not some later date when critical review will be no opportunity for
public notice and review of such
Further, there is no effort for any monitoring of actual construction activities for
compliance.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of
the City of Santa Ana
October 20, 2020
Page 10
CEQA does not permit governmental agencies to play fast and loose with the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program obligations. Mitigation measures are not aspirational
statements they are supposed to be specific and enforceable and are to actually be enforced.
Here, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program falls far short. The "if it's convenient
we might do something" approach is not permissible.
The Spurgeon Building Owner's comments are timely submitted.
Lest the claim be made that our comments are somehow untimely, the following quote
from Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.0 1184,
1201, amply rebuts this claim:
City appears to have thought that the public's role in the
environmental review process ends when the public comment
period expires. Apparently, it did not realize that if a public
hearing is conducted on project approval, then new environmental
objections could be made until close of this hearing (§ 21177,
subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (b); Hillside, supra,
83Cal.App.4`h at p. 1263.) If the decisionmaking body elects to
certify the EIR without considering comments made at this public
hearing, it does so at its own risk. If a CEQA action is
subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be deficient on
grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the hearing
on project approval.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing and incorporating any and all objections and comments to this
Project made by others during the environmental process, the owners of the Spurgeon Building
requests that the City Council deny certification of the Addendum, not approve the various
Project approvals before it and instead direct Staff and the Applicant to conduct a further
analysis and full EIR concerning the impacts from this Project.
Enclosures
cc: Clients
..rg
1 b
3Nl,tltl73N19N}itltlAl711tlL5 9NI11NtlN07-_
.Mo.npop A....:s
3
s
x
h
azcs/ §iit7
WHOM 11aoa
�q�d 31113
6 Y
s�
}
J
6
ai i I w
e � ens
x
i I I
,w
v
0
�
�
G
f�
b
aa_
� �
3
NVId
Nnno NmRC1 •a s
ti
axisppsgq3xtpps�yy3��ireni99inursgaxtunsxymAA.33.e
"/1alml sui lalsom
UN003SSNe 0.1 Q3rl
N
C
a
"`li
5t
W
W
i
{
A
a
°
a
llda
t
.'
ID
t
IT
i
GN
tp. y
al
`p
f 4
�
L�`7�
�
?
f<
c
{
r
ER
iF
i
0� b
Jo
Y+
> �0 8br13nbJS $7bel
QN°D35 F Qlx-i10y9 NMUNMOQ
l
tl33N17N3 IYtlNHOtl15 9NI1105N07
.
rvNVId
+. ... .,.�
HYI�i1�N� lY�aoY
SNO
13A3011 dHIHI
Q
TII
f f � x
d
�Z
$
I yy
j
O
IN
0
II
I
°' __ e�
W � ✓�
m
C/ I
W
z
may' _
R 4
IT
3 }
�I
j}
a
j[
IpI
�f fv
ry
i .�.
gh
4
� — i� �
�L
I
� l`lil
C r
✓� �
��
IE�Js
z
i ad -..
l
L ,
i
G
i
7
r
F
I *
0
OF
0I�
i
Y
i
J £r
aynlDna�s
�
7NI Stl73Nltl�tt tytl019Ntl15 7NI1105N07-
-__
t
y
-
,
fitlyy
NY�/I71dN�
,,ee��tltlryrylIpp yya gtl
lYiL�Y
SNO1103S
—_
ONIOl111B.
m
«c-...,,..
k
l
R
AU
W
W
�ly.
j
Y
II
f
of
L
Ll
f
ul .a
j.
_
I —
F
RL
-
i
I
I
�I
a
,:
h'y
SNOIY+3S
vo7u
i81'11Dn?A1S'7JI8d.
-
_
--
m3 menianN>.s sxmnswaa
9NI SOHNION3.rn.,m vRSNO3
u�tly ,�'�
e� vw.ervee
5 _'y A
99pp 9 yy9® yy
SN011035 Pie SNtl1
tl1tl15/tlO1tlA313
s
= a
TTAiVll—
"
j
4I
II
T�
a
of
,
r4
O
1
Ol
ir
MIZI95
o
rc,tFgIY?1
a
�77"�.
y ff5Y
�L-�
AEi9tl� ��
u S
�x II L
5 iA t
4 E
3�
dby�_ 6 e 6g �
I�
4E
fl4 �alA.�
1
JV
2 I
r r
I yy_ n
d
tM !
i�
T
!
U���ni
i lk
�� ♦� r J
-
n
131
._
1
+,
,
IN
r
Ej Sa q M'i
I
i
b�avn3» wmoa.nm�a 'w's
F
Ss33N19N3 1pni90Sls 90114SN09
WHO
M
Ha�nOM taaaaa ----.. 8,1V13U
NVId °JNid VOSONVI 311S'
.`• g§ 3 '18NIVW • � IW tYh g 0 �i2 1
q �`_4 a� paP9♦ � � y � �a pt e� r � - sl ° i�} � P� m 5s - � �
Ji r
r 1�O
o
of�u�Y�,b2 r yS 3� w
-o r T �� � •� V �.� 2 l-1"2'�1I � d d.,Y�� 3 T
/ Ai
s �
ti
r SSS��M
`t- } 7I
..o
♦aMa4a&&, "l` �
r�
r-
,
. - L
3xi sassxinxI ivu.iaamanals sxmss13
Main LU3803 M
__ Ntlld ONIdVOSONVI 311$
f
i
� 1
�g.� ¢ : � {'iu�WSp� key'. � II .l It .•o .
urG 7pp �A
,
ET
yt is i 'Yli s A �
s
ia. kyF it 3
4 �U �N $' t
'fit-, "e i g •.... -0 t�� / ;a z� d i
A i � 2 s
Y F yy W
a
� y I o$ g*i� w � •�.a� f I� g4g
0 s
AYr s
Ell
vmavoua
z�
7NI Stl33NISN31Ytltll�tltllS �SNI11tlSNSY
oxm v'.xvy
� =
p ytO`�
�•.
--
pqq p�tl n yyqq ee q�tl
HY�/I� lY�YUY
_ __ _
Poe
iNi
"WHI
NtlId NOI1tlOItltl13113
„
` '1S NItlW
1
J
F
�9 G
}
w
I A t
Ji± r w
m�
a s�Y
f
O � i U
L
w � �
I
�xo
kY
O
i
Za
g
I`
W
S
Y Yi
w
a
m
t
z
�1
s '
3,Q;,1 V., .,..,.M.
7NI SN33NI'JN) itlNNl71�tl14 SNIIINSNNS ®
HaiN�»e� taaaoa
J
n'Moi sli rxr Pug
. S,Id13N p�tl
Ntlld ONIdVOS4Ntll 3119
J
Li
0
N
W
'1S NItlW
ti
`'
_
h
2
I
�I
W�
y Q
1Wiu
r
Y
y-. 1
em
0 3
?Jtit3%
-1 tlBtltlJB`� I 'vOGOG04
N
T
�\
I.
i
u r �
Atlmavobu
Itl155I3NI9N31Cei1L10N16 BNIlIDSN07 ,.xxour" x<s I�
/M5DION ltlH]N30 x
6 A
�3515
z. r # #
�x8y
—i xz
W°8 z s
�
I Al
LU
{]f
s ° �a
k MA
I
YT Im �
;" I
I o
W E { OS SYti.
atyg
If z _a
e,
Z
l
I7s�,v W
NM7iNNg61 .tl.S
9
Ntln xm OaxmpO tlMtl va
�RVId N®OI1VONflOj y
I
w
_
o
w
w
a
�
z
F
o�
C O�n�G,CiC�rJ�OCO�JO�`:
Spptl3yy3N�9N3■■itltllll]Iftl15y�SNN105Ntl7
HV�NDSH3 Lai oa E �SNVId� NINVtli ` N
T II iA N
W d
u
/ry J
a a
i -
a
a
O
s
b
s ..
� " '/
Er r l-P�i
3b`nl3nybS '�11bli
1-V
,..
`?NIWYyd
NMa'Nma4 'V'S
aN� ;ssaxiaxS3 ivunlannls sxmnsnoa ,
�1
�
=4 2 q R s
f W-
p ¢
J J
' W
g a —I
I I 3s
aa I
h
If
S P 1 L_J
r„
77
a
�4 0
d g
i �jk 0 rs �Fl=-
IT
±
1 Z
s oFf-
1 I C Y
11K � ✓ °1°° ��JJ q L i° q
Y � q
I
r
f/ L
- a IL ,
FJ
h S `"< ,�3YYIkbgMJS '9�%1d /�/'E"/^/
. ..
3NI SN33NION3 I UMON3s sxulRSN03
reo... .....ns
j .L.
4'S '9'AAci
I NMO.LNMQQ V'S
ld-ftmus 'saa�t
NMQoLwtnoQ 'y'S
_ Nmoawawn 'b'S -
;.;a!d9V.: I I L.I
l l
YI
LJ a ,
g
I
Y
o- I
-
1 itlW OW dS N99NLI
"jt T' 9:�EIlS 4ktS i41 lOZ
4 "flj l'3fid1S eJNDfdtld
�Z,—
% e�
U
+� $ YS Ni lI(70'id ,° �1yi131f141S bNl,'WVd' c
�M r
r
i
9 u�
nu
i
,a
L ul
r-
�
111
i
�
is'IIIII�RIiiIIRR€IRI��IRIRIRRIRI
�blllllNlllllll�nlll
"' INNnlnlnn
i
1@1INININIINNIsaIINiN11NINnIN1
l�NII�N�NNIINN
1
N
.
'�xxll�q_'IFGIaIncEFc@rxlwwlxlxmw
IL#1�
Q�I9IIG�
IxRllxwl
INN
E€I::"xl::I:x:nxx......wlilwq
MINIwxwwx
min
wME
���oolxo�aaoeeoea�m�Eroo�a�
ooeo�a
RIIIIIIRIi1Nl
�ERi
�11�1
1
MUM=
I
r
�
Y
�a
ilii
®lII
=
HIM
�w�ow
¢uoo�o�
�ENRRIIR9IRIIIBIIIIIIRIIi1R11�1��1�
FINi�lll�lnNIN11NNlnlNln
EINIIIINI
N IN�NINNIIII
1
nnnnnl
ninnln
xx
Ilpx�xwwx
�
wlxiww
���xwlAlx®x®�p�II'''gqi�i'na
III
xx
xl
pO��11�nA�HE
�-0W07GOWG
T
-
'
- r
p
a
4=
`i
u
s
zz
<
9
o-
J
�
�2_r11
3 !Q, 3Wo� alSeea�''
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
October 4, 1982
The meeting was called to order by
in Room 147, City Council Chambers,
present were John Acosta, Daniel E.
McGuigan, and Mayor Gordon Bricken.
J. Wilson, City Attorney Edward J.
Janice C. Guy. Councilmember R. W.
1:17 p.m.; Councilmember Alfred C.
Mayor Pro Tem John Acosta at 1:11 p.m.
22 Civic Center Plaza. Councilmembers
Griset, J. Ogden Markel, Patricia A.
Also present were City Manager A.
Cooper, and Clerk of the Council
Luxembourger joined the meeting at
Serrato was absent.
WORK STUDY SESSION Richard Thompson, President of
AMTRAK DESIGN CONCEPT Archiplan unveiled an architech-
ural rendering of the Amtrak
station proposed for Santa Ana
and discussed briefly modifications which had been made to the design.
Mark Hall, also of Archiplan, conducted a hypothetical walking tour of
the building, describing traffic patterns, interior facility placement,
landscape design and plantings, and structural materials. He explained
that construction was anticipated to begin in the spring of 1983 and
should be completed toward the latter part of the year. Both members of
the firm then responded to Councilmembers' questions. The Council as a
whole expressed approval with the new design for the Orange County
Transportation Center (Amtrak Station).
The Council recessed at 1:55 p.m. and reconvened in the Council Chambers
at 2:09 p.m., with the same members present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following the Pledge of
INVOCATION Allegiance to the Flag, the
Invocation was given by Council -
member Luxembourger.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS REMOVED
CONSENT CALENDAR
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVED
The following items were removed
from the Consent Calendar: 3B,
4, 5A, 5D, 5E, 5F, 8, 12, 17A,
17B, 19A, 19B, 19C 2 and 3.
MOTION was made by Bricken,
seconded by Luxembourger, to
approve staff recommendations on the
following Consent Calendar items:
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
333
OCTOBER 4, 1982
MINUTES
BID CALLS
Approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of September 20,
1982, and Adjourned Regular
Meeting of September 21, 1982.
Approved plans and specifications
and authorized advertisement for
bids on the following:
SPEC 82-021 - Two 2-Door Hatchback Sedans -
Public Works, Fleet Maintenance.
PROJECT 8483/6172 - Resurfacing of All Purpose
Courts at Various School/Park Sites - Recreation,
Parks and Community Services. CA 89
BID AWARDS Awarded the following in
accordance with bid summary
reports submitted:
SPEC 82-014 - Traffic Signal Controller Assemblies -
Transportation; Multisonics, in the amount of $780,387.90.
PROJECT 7291/6165 - Adams Park Concession Stand and
Restroom Renovation - Recreation, Parks, and Community
Services; Martin Resnik Const., in the amount of $72,310.00.
PROJECTS 9019, 9040, 9041 & 9042 - Restriping Various
Locations - Transportation; American Construction, in the
amount of $20,266.00. CA 89
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
LICENSE APPLICATIONS
Received and filed staff
report on the following:
SARSOUR, Samir, 2034 S. Main - Original Type 20
Off -sale Beer & Wine.
FOOD SERVICE CATERING, INC., 600 W. Santa Ana Blvd. -
Original Type 41 On -sale Beer and Wine, Public Eating
Place, Replacing Existing License.
MORGAN, Connye, 701 N. Harbor - Person -to -person
transfer Type 42 On -sale Beer and Wine, Public
Premises.
CA 146
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 334 OCTOBER 4, 1982
DEEDS WITH CASH
GRANTEE CITY
Approved the following deeds
and authorized execution by
the Mayor and Clerk of all
necessary documents:
WESSON, David B. & Giustina J., WS/Newhope,
S/First; street purposes.
MAGANA, Xochilt V., WS/Newhope, N/Watkins;
street purposes.
GUTIERREZ, Ysidra C., WS/Euclid, N/Roosevelt;
street purposes.
CA 155
BOARDS - COMMISSIONS - Appointed the following:
COMMITTEES
Allan V. Guy - At -large representative to Inter -County
Airport Authority; first term expiring October 15, 1986
(reappointment).
CA 80.9
UNINVESTIGATED LIABILITY Referred to administration,
CLAIMS claims received from September 13,
1982 through September 24, 1982.
CA 65.7b
REPORTS TO FILE
PROCLAMATION REPORT.
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA/ORDINANCE
Received and filed the following:
CA 46
CA 47
CONTINUE ITEM -INTER -COUNTY Continued the following item to
AIRPORT REQUEST November 1, 1982:
LETTER RECEIVED FROM INTER -COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1982, REQUESTING SUPPORT OF A
RESOLUTION OPPOSING ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL
AIRPORT IN SANTIAGO CANYON. CA 98
MACARTHUR BLVD. MEDIAN LAND-
SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - TRANS.
SERVICES.
request design proposals.
Approved Request for Proposals to
landscape MacArthur Boulevard
medians and authorized the
Director of Transportation to
CA 29.14
CA COUNCIL GRANT FOR PAUL Approved the acceptance of the 1982-83
APODACA California Arts Council Grant for Paul
Apodaca to work at the Bowers Museum
from October 1, 1982 through July 31,
1983; authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the necessary
documents including the "Agreement for Teaching Services" between the City and
Mr. Apodaca; and authorized the Finance Director to establish the necessary
fund accounts as required. A-82-83
* * * * * * * * * * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR FINIS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
335
OCTOBER 4, 1982
BID AWARD Following discussion, MOTION
PROJECT 7149A was made by Bricken, seconded
APPROVED by Griset, to award the following
in accordance with the bid summary
report:
PROJECT 7149A - Recarpeting of Certain Offices on
Eighth Floor, City Hall - Public Works; C.O. Minor,
in the amount of $13,015.00. (Agenda Item 3B)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: Serrato CA 89
CHANGE ORDER Councilmember Luxembourger commented
ASSESSMENT DISTR. #246 that he was concerned that Lloyd's
APPROVED Bank would want to be included in
the pedestrian bridge project
proposed under the Change Order for Assessment District #246 which would
require further expenditure. The Director of Community Development
stated that Lloyd's Bank was not interested in participating at this
time. MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by Griset, to approve the
following change order:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #246 - Parking Structure at Third
and Broadway; Donlan Construction Corporation, in an
amount not to exceed $100,000.00, for the construction
of a pedestrian bridge spanning the east -west alley
between the parking structure and the buildings under
rehabilitation on the 100 block of West Fourth Street.
(Agenda Item 4)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: Serrato CA 90
ABC LICENSE APP. Following discussion, MOTION
SIGLAR, Donald was made by Bricken, seconded
3664 S. Bristol by Luxembourger, to receive
REC'D & FILED and file staff report on the
following:
SIGLAR, Donald, 3664 S. Bristol - Original Type 41
On -sale Beer & Wine, Public Eating Place.
PROTEST: Planning. (Agenda Item 5A)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: Serrato CA 146
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 336 OCTOBER 4, 1982
ABC LICENSE APP. Wallace Davis, 540 North
SHOBEIRI, TONY Golden Circle Drive, Attorney
1222 E. FIRST for the applicant, addressed
REC'D & FILED Council with regard to an
ABC license application for
property at 1222 E. First St., and requested that the Police protest be
withdrawn. MOTION was made by Luxembourger, to withdraw the Police
protest if the applicant would agree to having no video games in the
establishment and limited liquor sales. Motion died for lack of a
second.
MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by McGuigan, to receive and file
staff report on the following:
SHOBEIRI, Tony, 1222 E. First - Original Type 20 Off -
sale Beer & Wine. PROTEST: Police. (Agenda Item 5D)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 146
ABC LICENSE APP. Following discussion, MOTION
GREENBERG, PAUL was made by Markel to receive
123 N. BROADWAY and file the staff report on the
PROTEST REMOVED ABC license application for
W/UUN 111UN5 "' property at 123 N. Broadway.
Motion died for lack of a
second. MOTION was made by Griset, seconded by McGuigan, to receive
and file the staff report and remove the Police protest providing the
applicant agreed to the following conditions on the license:
1) Sixty-five percent of gross sales must be for food
and non-alcoholic items;
2) Sales of alcoholic beverages are permitted between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. only; and
3) No video games are to be permitted on the premises.
(Agenda Item 5E)
AYES: Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan
NOES: Acosta, Markel
ABSENT: Serrato CA 146
ABC LICENSE APP. Joe O'Campo, 1108 East Fourth
O'CAMPO, JOE Street, addressed Council and
403 N. BUSH requested that the Police
CONT'D TO 11/1/82; protest be withdrawn on the ABC
STAFF INSTRUCTEr application for property at 403
N. Bush St. MOTION was made
by Luxembourger, seconded by Griset, to withdraw the Police protest if
the applicant would agree to the following conditions:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 337 OCTOBER 4, 1982
1) The number of pool tables would remain at 14; and
2) No video games would be permitted in the establishment.
Following further discussion, the motion was withdrawn. MOTION was made
by Bricken, seconded by McGuigan, to continue the following to November
1, 1982, and instruct staff to examine the feasibility of instituting
conditions that would permit the removal of the Police protest:
O'CAMPO, Joe, 403 N. Bush - Premise -to -premise
transfer Type 40 On -sale Beer & Wine.
PROTEST: Police, Planning. (Agenda Item 5F)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 146
Council recessed at 3:22 p.m., and reconvened in the Council Chambers
at 3:39 p.m., with the same members present.
EX 82-25 Following discussion, MOTION
2610 "C" W. EDINGER AVE. was made by McGuigan, seconded
APPROVED & FILED by Luxembourger, to approve
and file Notice of Exemption
and Findings of Fact on the following:
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION & EX 82-25 - Filed by Stanley
Okimoto to allow Off -sale Beer and Wine in an
existing market "Mekong" at 2610 "C" W. Edinger
Avenue in the C 1 District. (Agenda Item 8)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 13.2
EXT. JT. POWERS The City Manager reviewed the
AGREEMENT-OC MANPOWER COMM. proposed amendments to the
CONT'D TO 1/3/83; joint powers agreement for the
Orange County Manpower Commission.
Morton Fink, 1983 S. Ritchey,
addressed Council and requested that the existing agreement be continued
to January 1, 1983, and also requested that the City Manager meet with
the Executive Committee of the Private Industry Council and the Chairman of
the Commission to attempt to modify the proposed amendments to the agreement.
MOTION was made by Luxembourger, seconded by Markel, to continue the
following to January 1, 1983, and to instruct staff to meet with the
Private Industry Council to see if some compromise might be reached
concerning the proposed changes to the agreement:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 338 OCTOBER 4, 1982
EXTENSION OF AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR
ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION - Between City
and County of Orange, City of Anaheim, and City
of Garden Grove, for the period October 1, 1982
through September 30, 1983. (Agenda Item 12)
AYES: Acosta, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: Bricken, Griset
ABSENT: Serrato
CONTINUE ITEMS -
SA MOBILE HOME REPORT
SCAG MEMBERSHIP FEE
CONT'D TO 11/1182
MOTION was made by Markel,
seconded by McGuigan, to
continue the following to
November 1, 1982:
A-82-94
CA 140.4
SANTA ANA MOBILE HOME MEDIATION COMMITTEE REPORT.
(Agenda Item 17A) CA 16
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS PROGRAM: MEMBERSHIP FEE -
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS.
(Agenda Item 17B) CA 141
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato
SA/OC TRANSP. CENTER
CONCEPT DESIGN APPROVAL
AMTRAK
APPROVED
authorize the consultant to proceed with
(Agenda Item 19A)
MOTION was made by McGuigan,
seconded by Markel, to approve
the concept design for the
Santa Ana Orange County
Transportation Center and
preparation of working drawings.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 82.12A
HOUSING SECT. 8 CERTS. MOTION was made by Bricken,
APPROVED seconded by Griset, to approve
Housing Authority redistribution
of Moderate Rehabilitation
Section 8 Certificates. (Agenda Item 19B)
AYES: Acosta,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
CA 137
339 OCTOBER 4, 1982
MACARTHUR BLVD. MEDIAN MOTION was made by Bricken,
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS seconded by Luxembourger, to
APP. ADJ. - APPROVED authorize a loan to the
Redevelopment Agency in the
amount of $250,000.00 from General Revenue Sharing funds; and approve an
Appropriation Adjustment transferring $250,000.00 from 401-116-Project
8537-MacArthur Boulevard Landscaping & Improvements to South Harbor
Project Area-$200,000.00; and South Main Project Area-$50,000.00, on the
following:
MACARTHUR BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS -
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. (Agenda Items 19C2 and 3)
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan CA 65.3
NOES: Markel CA 29.14
ABSENT: Serrato CA 89
RECESS
HSG. AUTHORITY
RECONVENED
At 4:34 p.m., Council recessed
to the Housing Authority and re-
convened at 4:39 p.m., with
the same members present.
ORD. NO. NS-1649 MOTION was made by Bricken,
INCREASE CONSTR. VALUATIONS seconded by McGuigan, to place
FOR STREET DEDICATIONS the following ordinance on
2ND READING & ADOPTED second reading and adopt:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1649 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA AMENDING SECTION 33-47 OF THE SANTA
ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS
FOR REQUIRED STREET DEDICATIONS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 29.4
Councilmember Serrato joined the meeting at 4:39 p.m.
ORD. NO. NS-1651 MOTION was made by Bricken,
TRANSP. SYSTEM seconded by McGuigan, to
IMPROVEMENT AREA "A" place the following ordinance
2ND READING & ADOPTED on second reading and adopt:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1651 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AMENDING THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING SECTION 8-44 TO ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT FEE, ADDING ARTICLE XII TO CHAPTER
13, ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
AREA "A" FUND, AND AMENDING SECTION 8-99 TO CORRECT
A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR.
AYES: Acosta,
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: None
Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Serrato
CA 84.3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 340 OCTOBER 4, 1982
ORD. NO. NS-1652 MOTION was made by Luxembourger,
PEEP SHOW ESTAB, seconded by McGuigan, to place
1ST READ. & PUBLISH TITLE the following ordinance on
first reading and authorize
publication of title:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1652 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTIONS 12-22, 12-27 AND 12-29 OF, AND ADDING
SECTION 12-45 TO, ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 12 OF
THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PEEP
SHOW ESTABLISHMENTS.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel,
McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ORD. NO. NS-1653
CITY LEASED LOT
FLOWER & S.A. BLVD.
1ST READ. & PUBLISH TITLE
CA 149
MOTION was made by McGuigan,
seconded by Luxembourger, to
place the following ordinance
on first reading and authorize
publication of title:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1653 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA ADDING SECTION 36-436 TO THE SANTA
ANA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGULATING PARKING IN THE
CITY LEASED LOT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FLOWER
STREET AND SANTA ANA BOULEVARD.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: Griset CA 18.7
ORD. NO. NS-1654 MOTION was made by Bricken,
HOME OCCUP. REGULATION seconded by McGuigan, to place
1ST READ. & PUBLISH TITLE the following ordinance on
first reading and authorize
publication of title:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1654 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA AMENDING SECTIONS 41-73 AND 41-201
OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING
SECTIONS 41-192.1, 41-192.2, 41-192.3, 41-192.4
AND 41-192.5 THERETO, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REGULATION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: None
ABSENT: Griset CA 91
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
341
OCTOBER 4, 1982
ORD. NO. NS-1655
SANITATION SERVICES
USERS CHARGE
1ST READ. & PUBLISH TITLE
MOTION was made by Bricken,
seconded by McGuigan, to
place the following ordinance
on first reading and authorize
publication of title:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1655 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA ADDING ARTICLE V, CONSISTING
OF SECTIONS 39-80 THROUGH 39-83, TO CHAPTER 39
OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING
ARTICLE VII, CONSISTING OF SECTIONS 35-200
THROUGH 35-203, OF CHAPTER 35, TO RELOCATE AND
REVISE THE PROVISIONS FOR A SANITATION SERVICES
USERS CHARGE.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: None
ABSENT: Griset CA 65
Council recessed at 4:46 p.m., and reconvened at 4:59 p.m., with all
Councilmembers present.
Mayor Bricken left the meeting at 5:08 p.m.
ORD. NO.
NS-1656
Following consideration
of a
PROHIB.
ICE CREAM
letter dated October 1,
1982,
TRUCKS -
CONT'D TO 11/1/82
received from Rodolfu Montejano
requesting a continuance
to
November
1, 1982, MOTION was made
by McGuigan, seconded by Markel,
to
continue
the following ordinance
to November 1, 1982:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1656 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AMENDING THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING ARTICLE X TO CHAPTER 36, CONSISTING OF SECTIONS
36-450 THROUGH 36-455, INCLUSIVE, PROHIBITING CERTAIN
OPERATIONS BY ICE CREAM TRUCKS.
AYES: Acosta, Markel, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: Griset, Luxembourger
ABSENT: Bricken
Henry Riley, 2123 South Cedar Street spoke against the continuance. CA 112.14
Mayor Bricken rejoined the meeting at 5:21 p.m.
APPEAL NO. 470; VA 82-10 Richard Schmid, 11782 Loma
1719 W. EDINGER, SALVATION ARMY Linda, spoke in favor of the
RECONSIDERATION SET 11/1/82; request for reconsideration
filed by Williamson & Schmid
CONT'D TO 11/1/82 relating to the appeal against
VA 82-10 involving lights at
the Salvation Army facility on Edinger. Councilmember Acosta left the
Chambers due to a moral conflict of interest.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 342 OCTOBER 4, 1982
MOTION was made by Griset, seconded by McGuigan, to reconsider the
matter on November 1, 1982, restricting discussion to placement of the
light poles on the west property line and technical data pertaining to
lumens.
AYES: Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan
NOES: Markel, Serrato
ABSENT: Acosta
Councilmember Acosta rejoined the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
The following resolution was continued to November 1, 1982, by unanimous
informal consent:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-134 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROV-
ING VARIANCE NO. 82-10 TO MODIFY THE REAR YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1719 WEST EDINGER AVENUE IN THE A 1 DISTRICT. CA 13
RES. NO. 82-135 Wallace Davis, 540 North
DENYING EX 82-19 Golden Circle Drive, addressed
2302 N. GRAND ST. Council regarding Apneal No. 471,
FAILED appealing approval of Minor
Exception 82-19 seeking to
allow off -sale of beer and wine on property at 2302 N. Grand Avenue, and
requested reconsideration of the matter.
MOTION was made by Luxembourger, seconded by Serrato, to continue the
following resolution to November 1, 1982:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-135 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING
MINOR EXCEPTION APPLICATION NO. 82-19, SEEKING
TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR OFF -SITE
CONSUMPTION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2302 NORTH
GRAND STREET.
MOTION failed on the following vote:
AYES: Acosta, Luxembourger, Serrato
NOES: Bricken, Griset, Markel, McGuigan
ABSENT: None
MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by Markel, to adopt Resolution No.
82-135.
MOTION failed on the following vote:
AYES: Bricken, Markel
NOES: Acosta, Griset,
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Serrato
Luxembourger, McGuigan
No further action was taken on the matter.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
343
CA 13.5
OCTOBER 4, 1982
RES. NO. 82-136 MOTION was made by Bricken,
PROHIBITING VEHICULAR seconded by Serrato, to
USE OF SANTIAGO ST. adopt the following resolution:
ADOPTED
RESOLUTION NO. 82-136 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PROHIBITING
VEHICULAR USE OF A PORTION OF SANTIAGO STREET
SOUTH OF MEMORY LANE/PARKER STREET BY MEANS OF
ROADWAY DESIGN FEATURES.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: None CA 18.9
RES. NO. 82-137 MOTION was made by Bricken,
PROHIBITING VEHICULAR seconded by McGuigan, to
ENTRY TO GROVEMONT ST. adopt the following resolution:
ADOPTED
RESOLUTION NO. 82-137 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
PROHIBITING VEHICULAR ENTRY ON TO GROVEMONT
STREET FROM LINCOLN AVENUE BY MEANS OF
ROADWAY DESIGN FEATURES.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: None CA 18.9
RES. NO. 82-138
IMMIGRATION REFORM
CONT'D TO EVENING SESSION
to immigration controls, and requested
MOTION was made by Griset, seconded by
resolution to the evening session:
Leslie Rabine, 401 E. Bishop,
addressed Council, regarding
problems with proposed
Federal legislation relating
continuance to an evening session.
Bricken, to continue the following
RESOLUTION NO. 82-138 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA URGING
THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES TO SUPPORT
IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: None CA 57.1
RECESS At 6:07 p.m., Council recessed
DINNER to dinner with Orange County
RECONVENED Vector Control and Health
Planning Commission representatives
at Johnny's Restaurant, 2250 East 17th Street.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 344 OCTOBER 4, 1982
The meeting was reconvened in the Council Chambers at 7:53 p.m., with all
Councilmembers present.
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATION
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AWARENESS WEEK
Living Center, proclaiming the week of
Violence Awareness Week."
COMMUNITY SPOTLIGHT
"GOLDEN CITY DAYS"
salute to the City's 113th
presented a proclamation to
"Golden City Days."
Following the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag, the Invocation was given
by Reverend Gary Beard, Grand Avenue
United Methodist Church.
Councilmember Patricia A. McGuigan
presented a proclamation to Neil
Olson, Member of the Board of
Directors of the Women's Transitional
October 9-16, 1982, as "Domestic
CA 46
Lori Bassett, Chairperson, presented
an overview of "Golden City Days",
explaining that activities scheduled
for the period are intended as a
birthday. Councilmember Daniel E. Griset
Lori Bassett, proclaiming October 22-31, 1982 as
CA 9.4
COUNCIL/CRA The City Manager reported that the
SALE OF PROP. TO MARK P. developer had not met certain
ROBINSON & MARK P. ROBINSON, JR. deadlines with regard to sale of
NO ACTION Community Redevelopment property
to Mark P. Robinson and Mark P.
Robinson Jr., bounded on the north by Second Street, on the west by Olive
Street, on the south by First Street and on the east by Flower Street, and
that the matter should be dropped from the agenda. No action was taken by
Council on the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-117 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA AND MARK P. ROBINSON AND MARK P. ROBINSON,
JR. FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
IN THE SANTA ANA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE
SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CONTAINED IN THAT AGREEMENT. CA 82.4
JT. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL/CRA
FERRANTE/WALDER PROPERTY
TENTH & FLOWER ST.
RES. NO. 82-139 - ADOPTED
Mayor Pro Tem Acosta opened the
public hearing regarding the sale to
Ferrante/Walder, Joint Venture, of
property bounded on the north
by a line 165 feet southerly from
Tenth Street, on the west by Flower Street, on the south by Civic Center
Drive and on the east by Parton Street.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 345 OCTOBER 4, 1982
The Agency Real Estate Officer gave the staff report and recommendations.
The Clerk of the Council reported that all written communications had
been distributed to Council.
There were no speakers on the matter. The Mayor Pro Tem closed the
public hearing.
Sam Romero, 2034 South Spruce, requested an explanation of the public
hearing procedure, and inquired if a tenant in the audience could speak
on the matter.
The Mayor Pro Tem reopened the public hearing.
A tenant residing at 838 N. Garnsey asked questions of Council pertaining
to relocation, and was referred to staff.
MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by Serrato, to adopt the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 82-139 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE
RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND
THE FERRANTE/WALDER JOINT VENTURE FOR THE SALE OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE SANTA ANA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY
UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THAT
AGREEMENT.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: Markel
ABSENT: None CA 82.4
RECESS Council recessed to the Community
CRA Redevelopment Agency at 8:27 p.m.,
RECONVENED and reconvened at 8:59 p.m., with
all members present.
PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor Pro Tem opened the
WARD BOUNDARY CHANGES public hearing regarding ward
STAFF INSTRUCTED boundary changes proposed for
the City of Santa Ana. The
Clerk of the Council presented the staff report and recommendations.
The Clerk of the Council reported no written communications.
Merle Rabine, 401 E. Bishop, spoke against the ward boundary changes.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 346 OCTOBER 4, 1982
There were no other speakers on the matter. The Mayor Pro Tem closed
the public hearing.
Staff responded to questions posed by Council.
MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by Serrato, to instruct staff to
investigate the possibility of realigning ward boundaries based on
neighborhood boundaries defined in the General Plan and Neighborhood
Integrity areas, and to incorporate a minor modification to the ward
map at the northeastern boundary of Ward 6 requested by Councilman
Markel.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel,
McGuigian, Serrato
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
By unanimous informal consent, action on the following ordinance was
continued to November 1, 1982:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-1657 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA CHANGING AND ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARY
LINES OF THE WARDS OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. CA 108
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dwight Schroeder, 2332 North Old
Grand, addressed Council regarding
Minor Exception No. 82-19, rebutting
points made in a letter sent by
Wallace Davis requesting reconsideration of the granting of Appeal No. 471.
(See minutes page 343).
Bill Walker, 1104 North Baker, addressed Council regarding the home
occupation ordinance. CA 13.5
ORAL COMMUNICATION Michael May, 600 West Santa Ana
REFUSE COLLECTION Boulevard, Suite 900, representing
REFERRED TO STAFF Independent Solid Waste Handlers,
addressed Council regarding non-
scheduled trash disposal, and inquired as to whether or not Great Western
Reclamation could meet the demand for drop-off boxes needed by the
community.
MOTION was made by Griset, seconded by McGuigan, to refer to staff for
investigation the matter of demand/response rubbish collection and disposal,
and to incorporate the analysis results in the report that will come
before Council at the end of the year on the City's Solid Waste program.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel,
McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: None
ABSENT: None CA 11.4
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 347 OCTOBER 4, 1982
ORAL COMMUNICATION Robert L. Ward, Director of the
ROBERT WARD - SA WINDS Santa Ana Winds, addressed Council
STADIUM USE REQUEST and requested certain concessions
APPROVED relative use of the Santa Ana Stadium
for the California Band Review.
Following discussion, MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by Griset, to
approve the following:
1) Controlled use of Eddie West Field - Santa
Ana Stadium by the Santa Ana Winds' California
Band Review between the hours of 1:00 and
and 5:00 p.m., Friday, November 26, 1982, for
field band competition and trophy presentation,
and waive fees for said use;
2) Concession rights in the Stadium parking lot
up to 10:00 a.m.;
3) Authorization of the Director of Recreation,
Parks and Community Services, or his designee
to cancel permission granted in #1 above, for
field band competition, if this use, as the
result of weather conditions, would damage
the field surface; and
4) Provision by the Santa Ana Winds to the City of
a PL/PD insurance policy or certificate of
insurance under an existing policy to cover
this activity, as part of the normal Stadium
Tenant requirements.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: Serrato
ABSENT: None CA 52.8
ORAL COMMUNICATION
his client, Tony Shobeiri, 1222 E
Wallace Davis, 540 North Golden
Circle Drive, requested that
Council reconsider the alcoholic
beverage license application for
First Street. No action was taken.
CA 146
RES. NO. 82-138 Following discussion, MOTION
IMMIGRATION REFORM was made by McGuigan, seconded
& CONTROL by Markel, to adopt the following
ADOPTED resolution adding the words
"for newly hired employees" to
follow "employer job screening:"
RESOLUTION NO. 82-138 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA URGING THE
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES TO SUPPORT IMMIGRATION
REFORM AND CONTROL.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 348 OCTOBER 4, 1982
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: Serrato
ABSENT: None CA 57.1
CETA FUNDING PLAN MOTION was made by Bricken,
10/1/82-3/31/83 seconded by Griset, to take
APPROVED the following actions with
regard to the CETA Funding
Plan - October 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, and the CETA Administrative
Cost Pool - October 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983:
1) Approve recommended CFTA Funding Plan for listed
programs for the period October 1, 1982 - March 31,
1983.
2) Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a CETA Multi-
purpose Contract between the City of Santa Ana and the
Orange County Manpower Commission in the amount of
$547,569.00 for the period October 1, 1982 - March 31,
1983. A-82-84
3) Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute subcontract
agreements between the City of Santa Ana and the Rancho
Santiago Community College District in the amount of
$149,413.00, and the Santa Ana Unified School District
in the amount of $35,300.00 for the period A-82-85
October 1, 1982 - March 31, 1983. A-82-86
4) Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a CETA
Administrative Cost Pool Contract between the City of
Santa Ana and the Orange County Manpower Commission in
the amount of $135,103.00 for the period October 1, 1982 -
March 31, 1983. A-82-87
5) Approve Appropriation Adjustment No. 25 transferring
$91,795.00 from 132-183-Various Accounts-CETA Title I
Admin. Cost Pool to 132-350-Anticipated Revenue;
6) Approve Appropriation Adjustment No. 26 transferring
$238,985.00 from 132-184-Various Accounts-CETA Title IIB
Adult Work Exp. to 132-350-Anticipated Revenue;
7) Approve Appropriation Adjustment No. 27 transferring
$72,320.00 from 132-185-Various Accounts-CETA Title IIB
Recruitment Center to 132-350-Anticipated Revenue;
8) Approve Appropriation Adjustment No. 28 transferring
$59,225.00 from 132-186-Various Accounts-CETA Title IIB
In -School Youth Program to 132-350-Anticipated Revenue;
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 349 OCTOBER 4, 1982
9) Approve Appropriation Adjustment No. 29 transferring
$25,000.00 from 132-188-933-Ceta Title VII Priv Sctr
Initiative to 132-350-Anticipated Revenue; and
10) Approve Appropriation Adjustment No. 30 transferring
$47,660.00 from 132-350-Anticipated Revenue to
132-189-Various Accounts -Title IIB Out of School Youth
Program.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel,
McGuigan, Serrato
NOES: None CA 65.3
ABSENT: None CA 131.11
Councilmember Serrato left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
GROUP INS. POLICIES MOTION was made by Bricken,
AD&D; SPEC. EXCESS; seconded by Luxembourger, to
AGGREGATE EXCESS approve the following with
APPROVED regard to renewal of three
employee group insurance
policies:
1) Renewal and payment of renewal premiums on life and
accidental death and dismemberment insurance, specific
excess insurance, and aggregate excess insurance with
Lafayette Life Insurance Company for the period from
October 1, 1982, to October 1, 1983, and authorize
the Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary policy
addendums when received; and
2) Changing the existing $25,000.00 three-year per claim
deductible on the Specific Excess Insurance to a
$25,000.00 annual deductible per claim.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 88.80
88.85
APP. ADJ. NO. 41 MOTION was made by Bricken,
W. 17TH ST. FIRE seconded by McGuigan, to
STA. EXPANSION approve Appropriation Adjustment
APPROVED No. 41 transferring $135,000.00
from 51-999-911-General Fund
Capital Reserve Account to 51-322-621-Fire Suppression Land Acquisition
Project, for acquisition of the site on West 17th Street for fire station
expansion.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None CA 64
ABSENT: Serrato CA 65.3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 350 OCTOBER 4, 1982
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COUNCILMEMBERS
REFERRED TO STAFF
in the new vendor. He requested that an
lot functions and how deficiencies in its
Councilmember Acosta requested a copy of
Mayor Bricken reported on
continuing problems with the
Civic Center parking lot facility,
and stated he was disappointed
examination be made of how the
operation are mitigated.
the agreement with the vendor.
The matter was referred to staff by unanimous informal consent. CA 77.5
Councilmember Luxembourger reported on a letter dated September 30, 1982,
received from Robert P. Mandic, Jr., Mayor, City of Huntington Beach,
requesting support for the appointment of Don MacAllister to the Orange
County Solid Waste Advisory Commission, and asked that Council endorse
this appointment. CA 145.12
RECESS
EXEC. SESSION
EXEC. SESSION REPORT
GUADAN; SEARLES; LIAGA;
TORRES - CA AUTHORIZED
Council recessed to Executive
Session at 10:55 p.m., and
reconvened at 11:56 p.m., with
the same members present.
By way of action out of Executive
Session, MOTION was made by
Bricken, seconded by Luxembourger,
to authorize the City Attorney
to settle the Workers' Compensation claim of Ruben Guadan, in the amount of
$13,282.50; to compromise and release the Workers' Compensation Case of
James Searles in the amount of $15,000.00; to compromise and release the
Workers' Compensation Case of Gaulua Liaga, in the amount of $25,000.00;
and to settle the Workers' Compensation claim of Alberto Torres, in the
amount of $20,000.00.
AYES: Acosta, Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Markel, McGuigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Serrato CA 139
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:00 midnight, Council was
adjourned by unanimous informal
consent.
. C ;
lerk of the CounciY
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 351 OCTOBER 4, 1982
J,
WFI
4 a
1pp1
e
A
n�
t i
Q
Q,
I i
N[.6 oG ,yd
G
hNFIjryNO Q Q a Y o L'I�SII'1aU
'".�,♦.
IL'1f
IL'1f
'N'
l
a9
a
3�N
9
1
rr
N �
O
q��p♦
_.. � bF6 oL :did o�evngsg �/ FS/-./.
>_. a mad 4hR= ° 06
IUTI ICI IW,�1111111A'Utl
¢ Vld 9NIWV8-� 3NINtlZZ3W
T
ci
9
a
m
i
n
a
s
a
u
P
" 0
l%
f
f
Yso -
�z
t
�
r
0
l.,
Q
q
4T
16,
p-�il bib oL :yd Zi vrn +r�vrn
r � olLrn!)J
Tpi
nl�zl> 5rvra'a'He rmol nmoa
,.��
SN011D35 39412ifl
_tp.
U4Is .:
'TW
It
,5
F4
.zi
j
IPta
v
iSa
3
IL
^' 4I
_ m3� Od
o_ J.
- 0
ill
�N
Ilra�
�sej� 2
ill
uj
��
wP
1
1
IC II r� OI
N
i
e J L
dD e�rmavoY �� LhhL 21i 39®14
nnv n1Nns enrnanoae �o asn3 a
133tl1S a8e tl0 H1aON A3lltl
NVIHIS303J
Et7
3liOWtl0A5
_
a!
�•
I
S
Z.
Q.
I
6n
Y
-
btnazao
1
p�
1I clti �li
j
I I
.
i
Z
�i �I �I )
cli
V_1 VJ_I
W
y� -
�
W
d
Cl
I o
u I
� a
SO
3
f"4
c=lI
U=1
E
>
I(pN•lY
� 1
y
2 ti sBPEi
°g'
FF
I
r
r �Ell
y
F
yE
iL
€ P k
�
I
r
[g
L
e V F i t
yr
I
Ab}
74
n
15
> 3�$N
r`g 5'a
tl r f �y f
Oil
41
OR
❑ ❑
E-
W
1
w
�AVMavoae
4
�t tyj
tlNtl tl1NtlS - AtlM112 tl.HHDN A31H'
133tl1$ OtlE 30 H1tlON su 2 �. N
NOW
LA NVIHISD03d
RY5 jj 1 �
d 8 d d a s sIa ;W�� ` s ; ` �m s: ad z�a� £e a sera. g s. �` sr
" civil " m ,>wa=w =.� dHg �w�=L=en! 14 Aw a
w a �'_ €.a ONE _s } s s a d€ass„a'„wss s cs j=v s
Y "f 4 6g HG d -rG�'S
P L Ldd
" aam '" s dg!s Nis G s` 2 e 9
s �'� s a sr s a sL` xws g c s
s&s & 1 a
sv s a_j! My
e e �s�s. cs�ss -gs a es x s,- a NORM!: , �a i s� s
a �� . I._M.A...
sse tl� e `a $r sss xs os s& ss saaa s N s swss s, j 3 "I
s
W
W s p
a
.. Z ==;seswsas- mso'� „a,sbElul!
e G g L s IS
s.s wq r
knefl a>,
" n ss
s g
H. s - o sa e 4 s. s E_ z
�s1� s s ass a aw 9 p "1 �
s; sa gs } 9
sITRio a a s Q dAM
sc IN! .- "
e b Vflc6W wco .LLs. GEs
"
o
a gs
A.o
I;
Y
w
W
t tl3 L' v I~i Qi ti H ¢ W g zWo
Y
P to Ama W Z zo Z.
ST 1 A Z W O
a pN O
NO = N F
Wp
3 PvT J J a rt p Z Y
�.e ti W W L p Z O H
1
� o
xAF
jl
xl pia P?o,�
CFI
H �
��s 4Ac
O
n M
�
R
r
m
-F, R:v
p
rl
q p
y
ec
P
x
�i
�
U
`
,P'M
v
,a n
O 61C,08m 0 ®® s
- - -- - --- --
-
01tr\
_. �£ O%N- _.X371V N:VTi115'3O3d -
MAYOR
Miguel A. Pulido
MAYOR PRO TEM
Sal Tinaje n
COUNCILMEMBERS
Vincent F. Samtiento
Michele Martinez
Angelica Amezcua
P. David Benavides
Roman A. Bryan
August 15, 2013
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA • P.O. BOX 1988
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
Dr. Amir Dual
8950 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 105
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3565
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
Kevin O'Rourke
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Maria D. Huizar
SUBJECT: CATWALK ACROSS FROM 3RD STREET AND BROADWAY STREET PARKING
STRUCTURE (214 W. 4' STREET, SANTA ANA)
Dear Dr. Dual:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our discussion at the August 7, 2013 meeting. Staff consisting
of myself, Ms. Gaby Lomeli and Commander Ken Gominsky met with you to discuss the past nuisance
problems that have caused damages to your property. We informed you that city staff has been working
on various solutions to address the described nuisance problems. Also, we informed you that as a
temporary solution, we have authorized the security services from the 3 d and Broadway city parking
structure to provide additional monitoring (especially at night) of the catwalk, and to report any
suspicious activities to the Santa Ana Police Department. We described to you the two feasible solutions
and they are:
a. Remove the existing railing along the interior side of the catwalk for the portion of your property
and to install a new 10-foot-high wrought iron fence;
b. Remove the existing portion of the catwalk bridge along the portion of your property and protect
in place the remaining catwalk with new railing.
As we reviewed the two feasible solutions with you, we informed you that either solution would solve
only the problem from the City's right-of-way. However, you would have some issues on your property
as transients could still jump onto your building's rooftop from the adjacent buildings. To deter anyone
from doing this, we recommended that a fence be installed along the building line perpendicular to the
catwalk. Since this fence will be on private property, which is a civil matter, the City will not be able to
do the work. However, we mentioned that we could help to facilitate a meeting between you and the
adjacent property owners to discuss installing a common fence along the building roof line. Commander
Gominsky suggested that you complete a "No Trespass" Form from the Police Department giving them
the authorization to be on private property to arrest trespassers, which you have done so at the meeting.
Commander Gominsky also suggested that you contact Downtown Incorporated and ask for additional
Dr. Dual
August 15, 2013
Page 2
security monitoring of your property as well as consider installing lights and cameras for additional
security.
We are preparing the detailed work and a cost estimate for each solution and will need to obtain City
Manager and City Council review and approval before we can proceed with the City's procurement
process to award a contract to perform the work. I will be the primary contact person if you have to report
any issues and to inquire about the status of solving the problem.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(714) 647-5336, or via email at: nfong@santa-ana.org.
Nancy Fong, AICP
Interim Executive Director
Community Development Agency
c: Commander Ken Gominsky, Police
Gaby Lomeli, Redevelopment Project Manager I
Gerald Caraig, Building Safety Manager
Alvaro Nunez, Community Preservation Coordinator
Kenny T. Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer
Robert Aguirre, Assistant Engineer II
a
r
ftA
wA
100
Fj
k
R
�r
�t
♦� r
i
•uR-
4
6-ow
IF
-
4
�_. owl
m
0
Y�r
R
■
io
F
M$
a T'tl L � y � �� � f �y � F < Y•h
r ra: 9
¢ill
ar_-s MW
I �,
1
i
Lil �� �K�C'�14�h •j, �// z,�a
H
I
i�FlAeime
till
�PHA9►!1
!69."IRllx
N
B
E � .•� n r-7;v
4
I!Illllll■1lIIIIIIIdBIIR�I` Irv? to
it i��
All
Sr
x �1
I I
Jill Kongo ownTI-ig
y
-C�
k
I m �7
All
fix
.0$
J
i
psi ��•
rJ �.
r �
mod
9
i
_ r
�4
z_
ow
F
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Ernesto Conde <metrops.org@me.com>
Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:40 PM
eComment
3rd and Broadway Project
I am in support of this project as presented. It will bring much needed new infrastructure to help revitalize Downtown
Santa Ana and further the livability of the area.
Thankyou
Orozco, Norma
From: Cesar Adame <soz@gunthers.co>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:42 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Project 3rd & Broadway
Hello,
My name is Cesar Adame, owner of Gunthers on 3rd st. I also approve this project.
Best regards,
Orozco, Norma
From:Brit Costello <brit@cervezacito.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:54 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda Item No. 2
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners
We at Cerveza Cito Brewing Co. support agenda item No. 2 the 201 West 3rd project also known as the 3rd and
Broadway project. We are committed to seeing growth in our amazing community and see value to this project.
We fully support.
The Team of Cerveza Cito
309 W 4th St. Santa Ana, Ca. 92701
1
Orozco, Norma
From:Jon Desprez <jondesprez@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:52 PM
To:eComment
Subject:item # 2 3rd&Broadway project
>> Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council:
>>
>> Subject: item # 2 3rd&Broadway project
>>
>> I am writing to request your approval for the “3rd and Broadway” project.
>>
>> This project is such a beautiful addition to the Downtown Core. The architect, Studio One Eleven, was sensitive to the
character of the existing Historic Downtown. They paid special attention to the historic details of the rhythm and
proportions of the surrounding Historic Buildings. They were able to weave in the old, while being still being honest with
the architecture of today. The end result is a brilliant balance.
>>
>> Carefully placing the outdoor recreation decks and balconies and gently working with the building setbacks, they
controlled the massing to a very comfortable scale.
>>
>> Reactivating Sycamore Street will link the north and south of the Downtown Area, creating a more pedestrian friendly
environment. This will also create a safer place to be. The proposed retail, residential and Hotel will be active place. The
North and South Downtown will no longer be blocked with a dangerously large and dark parking structure which harbors
a den of criminal behavior.
>>
>> The Sycamore Plaza will be an active Plaza for the residents to enjoy street fairs, artist openings and famers and flea
markets. Downtown will once again be a gathering place for residents and visitors as well.
>> The revitalization of Santa Ana is moving in a progressive direction; let’s keep that momentum going and I encourage
you to approve the” 3Rd and Broadway” Project.
>
> Thank you
> Jon Desprez
>
>
2
Orozco, Norma
From:Timothy Rush <timrush1408@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:51 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Item 75-A , 3rd & Broadway project
Dear Mayor & Council
We desperately need a new parking garage downtown with All the residents this will bring to further improve our DTSA.
More parking in the DT has been bandied about since this garage was finished in 1981. Please approve this project!!!
Tim Rush Wilshire Square
Sent from my iPhone
3
Orozco, Norma
From:Matthew Hicks <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:56 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Matthew Hicks
dylanrocky@yahoo.com
1404 n Tustin ave g4
Santa Ana , California 92705
1
Orozco, Norma
From:Tina Miller <beani4tina@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:58 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Planning commission Item 2
Good afternoon.
I am writing to the members of the Planning Commission in support of the project on 3rd and Broadway. Any updates
within the city that will help revive economic development are a welcome sight after the devastating effects of COVID in
our community. The efforts into the construction alone will ensure paychecks for many local workers. When the project
is complete, the potential benefits of new residential space, service and retail employment opportunities, and the tax
revenue generated will be greatly needed.
Thank you for your consideration and approval of this vital project.
1
Date 10/20/20
eComment
Planning Commission Public Comment for Agenda item No.2
Dear eComment:
Hello, my name is Jason Venable and I am executive secretary and co/ owner of Suavecito pomade.
rd
I am writing in support of Item Number 2 the 201 West third project also known as 3 and
Broadway.
Sincerely,
Jason Venable
Executive secretary
st
2831 w 1 st
Santa ana , CA 92703
Orozco, Norma
From:Robert Escalante <rclipper@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:22 PM
To:eComment
Subject:3rd and broadway
Mr Chairman and fellow commissioners
I am writing this as support for agenda item 2 also known as the third and broadway Project.
Our City,Community and most of all our Local businesses will Benefit from this Economic Project. It is one of the
Keys to Helping Make our Downtown Successful.
Thank You and lets get together and Build this Sooner than Later
Sincerely
Robert Escalante. (Local Downtown Business on 3rd Street)
1
Flores, Dora
From:Elizabeth Meza <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:40 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in
subsidies to this well-connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the
public good, not for the good of developers.
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana
residents than this proposal. Fight for a revenue-generating lease, a project with more
affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until the deal can be renegotiated in
a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Meza
mezaelizabeth33@yahoo.com
2101 S Maple St, Apt B
Santa Ana, California 92707
1
Flores, Dora
From:Karen Roman <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:42 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Karen Roman
romank9420@gmail.com
1220 Wn 2nd
Santa Ana, California 92603
2
Flores, Dora
From:Mikaela Garduno <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2020 12:07 AM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Mikaela Garduno
mikaelagarduno@yahoo.com
2617 Freeman Ln
Santa ana, California 92706
1
Flores, Dora
From:Adriana Lopez <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:44 AM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn’t make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Adriana Lopez
avalle05@gmail.com
916 kilson sr
Santa Ana , California 92701
2
Flores, Dora
From:Anthony Provenzano <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2020 12:26 AM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Anthony Provenzano
anthonyfrederick42@gmail.com
615 N.Bush St. #291
Santa Ana, California 92702
3
Flores, Dora
From:Alex Estrada <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:53 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Alex Estrada
alexestradacr7@gmail.com
3222 S Main St
Santa Ana, California 92707
4
Flores, Dora
From:Diane Fradkin <dianefradkin@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:47 PM
To:Pulido, Miguel; Villegas, Juan; Bacerra, Phil; Penaloza, David; Mendoza, Nelida;
Solorio, Jose; Sarmiento, Vicente
Cc:eComment; Thai, Minh; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75 A - Proposed project at 3rd and Broadway
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers:
After thinking about this a bit more, I wanted to express that my objection to this development is only that the
City and the Planning Department don't take a more active role in how they envision the redevelopment of
our City.
I understand that Mr. Harrah has done a lot for this City which we all appreciate. However, its apparent that
the Planning Department is just an order taker of proposed projects. I believe they would better serve the City
by having an overall vision for our City's future and "direct" the developer to provide more of what is
beneficial to the City. For example, on this project, the building proposed is just too tall given the surrounding
buildings in the area. Also, the design of the building does not fit with the historic nature and character of
DTSA. And we all know that park space is in great demand.....where can these future residents escape to the
outdoors in DTSA? Also, we need to better understand how high density will exist in the post-corona virus
future.
Again, I am all for redevelopment, but it needs to be well evaluated and fit with what the City envisions.....not
just individual approval of everything that comes before you without considering what the entire area is best
suited and planned for. We are better than that. Let's make our City the best it can be with some real vision
and planning.
Respectfully Submitted,
Diane Fradkin
714-914-8047
5
Flores, Dora
From:Peter Irwin <53172petersirwin@att.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 6:50 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Peter Irwin
53172petersirwin@att.net
2229 Oak St.
Santa Ana, California 92707
6
Flores, Dora
From:Bysel Bowers <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:46 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn’t make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
Bysel Bowers
hal.bowers@yahoo.com
P.O. Box 15343
Newport Beach, California 92659
7
Flores, Dora
From:Luis Sarmiento <luis@elcentroculturaldemexico.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:32 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Luis Sarmiento
luis@elcentroculturaldemexico.org
837 N Ross St
Santa Ana, California 92701
8
Flores, Dora
From:Cecilia Rivas <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:23 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Cecilia Rivas
rivas.cecilia1966@gmail.com
533 S Glenarbor St
Santa Ana , California 92704
9
Flores, Dora
From:Ed Garza <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 4:54 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Ed Garza
esewolfie@gmail.com
1010 West MacArthur Blvd #22
Santa Ana, California 92707
1
Flores, Dora
From:Laura Siebert <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:02 PM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Another giveaway to developers?
City Staff,
The City shouldn’t provide public land and millions in subsidies to a developer, just to get a
hotel they might convert to apartments in a few years. As a Santa Ana taxpayer, I’m outraged
that we are going to provide our land and subsidies to a developer. Either get a better deal or
make a new plan.
Sincerely,
Laura Siebert
Hiking4ever44@outlook.com
1434 FRANZEN AVE
SANTA ANA, California 92705
2
Flores, Dora
From:OCTAVI0 Zuniga <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:36 AM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: No land giveaways and subsidies
City Staff,
Why is the city giving away our public land and millions in subsidies to a hotel in the midst of
this economic and health crisis? This project doesn’t make economic sense and is offensive
to me as a Santa Ana resident and taxpayer. Please, fight for the residents and get a better
deal!
Thank you,
OCTAVI0 Zuniga
hummveeh1@yahoo.com
2010 w Monica ln
Santa Ana , California 92706
1
Flores, Dora
From:Irene Mendoza <info@email.actionnetwork.org>
Sent:Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:22 AM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine
Subject:Item 75A: Public land for public good, not for developers
City Staff,
I am a Santa Ana resident. I urge you not to give away public land and millions of dollars in
subsidies to this well-connected developer to build a hotel. Public land should be used for the
public good, not for the good of developers.
Go back to the drawing board. There are many options that would better aid Santa Ana
residents than this proposal. Fight for a revenue-generating lease, a project with more
affordable housing and no hotel, or simply postpone this until the deal can be renegotiated in
a way that actually helps Santa Ana residents.
Thank you,
Irene Mendoza
mendoza1de@gmail.com
2437 West Flora Street,
Santa Ana, California 92704
2
Orozco, Norma
From:Melissa Palmerin <palmerinmelissa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:03 PM
To:eComment
Subject:item 75 A
1
My name is Melissa Palmerin. I live in ward 6.
2